Brocklebank makes case for RAF Leuchars

Tonight (Wednesday December 15th 2010), Scottish Conservatives used Members' Business in the Scottish Parliament to hold an emergency debate about the future of RAF Leuchars.

Ted Brocklebank, Scottish Conservative MSP for Mid Scotland & Fife, who is opening and leading the debate, said: (check against delivery)

I believe tonight's member's debate is as important as it is timely, especially in the light of renewed press speculation that Leuchars is to close and that the RAF have accepted its closure. The MOD has dismissed the story as complete speculation and 'deeply unsettling for staff at the RAF bases and their local communities'.

The MOD is right about the reports being deeply unsettling, with many in North East Fife now facing an agonising Christmas at the prospect of Leuchars closing. But is the Ministry right when it claims that it is still far too early to say what the RAF's final recommendation will be?

As a one-time newsman I think I recognise a leak when I see one and the Scotsman story carried all the hallmarks. The story seemed to have emanated either from Westminster or Whitehall and claimed that senior RAF officers were fighting tooth and nail to keep the Marham air base in Norfolk.

If Marham was retained, the argument went, then either Leuchars or Lossiemouth had to be scrapped because the UK could afford to keep only one strategic air base in Scotland. Leuchars, allegedly, was to be closed on cost grounds.

I'm sure there will be those in tonight's debate who will develop the argument about the economic threat to the village of Leuchars and other North East Fife communities which rely heavily on the airbase.

Locals are now in exactly the same state of limbo as the residents of Lossiemouth. And with the closure of the only other local large employer – the Guardbridge paper mill a couple of years back – unemployment, if Leuchars closes, is likely to be at least as bad as in Morayshire.

Arguments will also be made about the distinguished and crucial role RAF Leuchars has played in the UK's air defences dating back to 1911. I can add a personal note to that tale.

My father, a Yorkshire lad, posted north to Leuchars was one of those who took part in the bomber raid on the German pocket battleship Scharnhorst in Stavanger fiord in February 1941. Badly shot up, his Beaufort torpedo bomber limped back to Leuchars. Had he not made it home – and it was touch and go - the local lass he'd just married would have been widowed and I wouldn't have been here to propose tonight's motion.

So I have strong emotional as well as constituency reasons to argue the case for Leuchars.

But no matter how proud a history, no matter how serious the likely local economic impact, I believe the MOD must base its ultimate decision on what is right for the future air defences of the United Kingdom. I have already written to the Secretary of State for Defence, Dr. Liam Fox and I will be writing to him again to hammer home this message.

And I believe by any logical yardstick – whether it be cost efficiency or future strategic capability the case for the retention of RAF Leuchars is absolutely overwhelming.

A brief history lesson here. In the wake of 9-11 and after considering the alternatives, including Lossiemouth and Kinloss, the MOD decided that Leuchars was the right place to headquarter the northern element of the UK's Quick Reaction Alert, based on the new Typhoon Eurofighter.

This was to develop the excellent job Leuchars had been doing for decades, intercepting and shadowing aircraft from the former Soviet bloc countries as they carried out exercises round the Scottish coast.

Three squadrons of the latest Typhoons would be based at Leuchars to handle any air threat from whichever quarter and the runways would be extended and upgraded for the role. This work has now been carried out at a total cost of some £40m, according to the National Audit Office.

During this period approaches were made to the MOD about the possibility of using part of the Leuchars site as a commercial airport serving Dundee and Fife. That proposal was turned down flat by the MOD, so important apparently was Leuchars to the defence of the realm.

Are we now to believe that the RAF is prepared simply to abandon Leuchars and write off £40m at a time of major cutbacks in defence spending? Such a decision would surely be seen as blatant capitulation to political pressure from other interested parties both north and south of the border. It would be totally illogical on any strategic grounds since Leuchars was the original and preferred option by the MOD.

Now I'm trying very hard here not to get into a Leuchars v Lossiemouth beauty contest. That benefits neither community. What I am seeking is consistency in decision-making by the MOD along with answers to the following questions:

Does the MOD agree that any defence decisions must be made purely on strategic and cost grounds?

What, if any changes, in our strategic defence strategy have occurred in the four years since the MOD began upgrading the runways at Leuchars in readiness for the new Typhoons that would necessitate a change in operating base?

Do our defence chiefs believe that it would be cost-efficient to write off the £40m worth of runway improvements at Leuchars and base the Typhoons elsewhere?

Can the MOD confirm that the runways at Lossiemouth and Marham are not capable of operating the Typhoons without considerable further expense for upgrading?

These are fairly basic questions and I have already put them to the MOD and the RAF – so far with little satisfactory response.

If we're to believe press reports leaks to interested MPs about the RAF's alleged recommendations are rife, yet responses to legitimate questions from elected MSPs seem to be a different matter.

The MOD tells us that a decision is still months away. Yet MPs in the Norfolk area are reported to be piling on political pressure for the retention of RAF Marham.

And of course Fife MPs, including Gordon Brown, Sir Menzies Campbell, Lindsay Roy as well as MSPs have been pressing the case for Leuchars, just as local representatives did for Lossiemouth.

These are perfectly legitimate lobbying ploys and I am happy to be associated with both the Leuchars and Lossie campaigns. I believe both bases should be part of our defence capabilities.

What the Secretary of State must do, however, is to take all the evidence on board, ignoring the leaks and the press speculation. He must then clear-headedly make the right decisions for the future defence of the United Kingdom.

In that context I believe he will find the case for the Typhoon squadrons to continue to operate from Leuchars unanswerable. Leuchars was the right choice when the MOD originally made it. It is still the right choice a decade later.

Back to all posts