North East Fife MP Sir Menzies Campbell and Fraser Phillips, Chair of the Residents Action Force Leuchars Task Force, have sent a joint letter to the Defence Secretary urging him to provide guarantees for the future of the military base at Leuchars as a matter of urgency. Their letter is in response to a letter from the new Defence Secretary in which he rules out reconsidering the decision to close Leuchars as an RAF base.
Commenting Sir Menzies said:
“There is once again a question mark over the Army’s plans for Scotland and with that comes doubt about the Ministry of Defence’s plans for Leuchars.
“It is 4 months since the decision was taken to turn RAF Leuchars into an Army base yet the Ministry of Defence appears to suggest its plans for the base are still a work in progress. The new Secretary of State for Defence has scrupulously avoided providing a detailed timetable for the arrival of the Army at Leuchars or even guarantees that this course of action will come to pass. This lack of clarity is frankly unacceptable.â€
Fraser Phillips said:
“For more than a year uncertainty has hung over the base at Leuchars and doubts about its future still remain. If the Army is coming to Leuchars the Ministry of Defence should be able to provide the people of Fife with the same sort of assurances it recently gave the community of Kinloss.
“It is extremely difficult for the local community to begin work on ensuring the transition between the RAF leaving and the Army arriving is a smooth one without a clear timetable set out by the Ministry of Defence.â€
The letter from Menzies and Fraser Phillips is copied below.
“The Rt Hon Philip Hammond MP
Secretary of State for Defence
Floor 5, Main Building
Ministry of Defence
Whitehall
London SW1A 2HB
24th November 2011
Thank you for your full reply to my letters of 19th and 24th October. In view of its terms I have shared its contents with Fraser Phillips, the Chairman of the Task Force which was set up in Fife to argue the case for the retention of RAF Leuchars. The views expressed in this reply reflect a joint response by both of us.
I should begin by recording my disappointment that the basing review is not to be re-opened, not least because the uncertainties you frankly identify in your letter seem to undermine the integrity of the review.
First we would like to reiterate our firm support for the retention of the base in its current form because of the clear operational benefits this offers. Nothing has changed since RAF Leuchars first undertook Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) North duties forty years ago which would undermine the rationale behind its suitability for that role. Indeed, the location of the base and the advantages which flow from it in terms of proximity to major population centres are more important than ever given the threats to British security identified by this Government in its National Security Strategy.
Figures from your Department also show that RAF Lossiemouth lost 4 times as many available flying days than RAF Leuchars over the last 5 years, the majority caused by bad weather. Clearly this has an impact upon the base’s operational suitability, on the availability of crew flying training hours and on overall cost effectiveness. Figures show that basing the Typhoon force at Lossiemouth rather than Leuchars will cost £3.4 million annually more per squadron (£10.2 million overall presuming there are to be three squadrons) because of additional transit time to training areas (the training areas near to RAF Lossiemouth being unsuitable for the Typhoon. It is worth noting that RAF Leuchars is much closer to principal national training areas and those used for training with allies).
In reaching the decision that the Typhoon Force should be transferred from Leuchars to Lossiemouth you write that your predecessor took account of factors identified by me and also ‘wider benefits that will be secured by the Department through the use of Leuchars by the Army’. Are you able to specify what these ‘wider benefits’ amount to? Have you been able to assess the weight your predecessor attached to the views of the senior commanders of the RAF itself which are understood to have been in favour of Leuchars. Can you confirm that was their advice? What assessment was made then or since of the increased risk to the population centres of the northern half of the United Kingdom by removing the Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) North capability from a station adjacent to eighty per cent of the population of Scotland and close to sensitive installations such as Torness Power Station and the nuclear submarine base at Faslane? What assessment was made of the additional flying time from Lossiemouth in the event of a multi pronged emergency involving, say, London when QRA aircraft from Scotland might be required?
The language of your letter is careful not to give any guarantee that any Army units will ever be stationed at Leuchars. Is this a legitimate inference from your stated position? Do you understand that the recent announcement in relation to Army deployments at RAF Kinloss without any similar information being given about Leuchars have reinforced anxieties about the MoD’s long term commitment to Leuchars.
Do you accept that it is possible that the Army will decide not to go to Leuchars, not least because RAF Leuchars does not offer a cost effective or practical basing solution for the Army: there is a lack of nearby training areas and the estate is limited in size.
I am grateful for the information you have provided about the costs of transferring the Typhoon Force to Lossiemouth. Can you provide more detail about the ‘parented units’ referred to at the foot of page 2 of your letter – which units is it intended to relocate and to where? At the top of page 3 still under the general heading of ‘costs of transferring Typhoons to RAF Lossiemouth’ there is a reference to the cost of ‘Move of personnel, stores and equipment, communications and infrastructure systems to RAF Leuchars (sic)’. If these are charges associated with transferring Typhoon to Lossiemouth why is there a reference to RAF Leuchars?
Your Department has conceded that there are financial disadvantages in basing the Typhoon Force at RAF Lossiemouth but claims that these are outweighed by wider Defence considerations such as the basing of the Army at Leuchars and the realisation of receipts from the disposal of high value estate in Edinburgh.
Do you accept that in the present economic climate the target for the funds to be realised by the sale of defence sites in and around Edinburgh cannot be achieved in the foreseeable future?
If the Army’s rebasing strategy is not yet completed and legitimate questions are being asked about the probability of selling its Edinburgh estate at the value estimated and within a particular time frame, the rationale for the transfer of the typhoon from RAF Leuchars to RAF Lossiemouth is therefore in doubt. This is particularly relevant when it is now proposed to reduce the professional Army from its present strength to 82,000. Should not your Department look again at that rationale – both operational and financial – for moving the Typhoon from its current base?
I appreciate that I have raised quire a number of issues but I should be grateful if you were able to provide answers.
Do you have any intention to visit Leuchars in the foreseeable future?
Yours sincerely,
Menzies Campbellâ€
