RAF Leuchars

– in the Scottish Parliament at 5:20 pm on 15 December 2010.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Alasdair Morgan Alasdair Morgan Scottish National Party 5:20, 15 December 2010

The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S3M-7530, in the name of Ted Brocklebank, on retention of RAF Leuchars. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament considers that RAF Leuchars plays an essential role in the defence of the United Kingdom; commends the professionalism and dedication of military personnel who have served or serve there; considers that those who have been deployed from Leuchars on active service have given exemplary service since the First World War; believes that the case for RAF Leuchars remaining as one of the United Kingdom's two main fighter strike bases is overwhelming as it has a pivotal strategic position on the east coast and is adjacent to Scotland's major population centres; understands, however, that any considerations on how the United Kingdom's air defences are deployed and where aircraft should be based must be made on strategic grounds, and believes that the Secretary of State for Defence must make his decision on that basis.

Photo of Ted Brocklebank Ted Brocklebank Conservative 5:22, 15 December 2010

Tonight's debate is as important as it is timely, especially in the light of renewed press speculation that Leuchars is to close and, indeed, that the Royal Air Force has recommended its closure. The Ministry of Defence has dismissed the story as complete speculation and as

"deeply unsettling for staff at the RAF bases and their local communities".

The ministry is right to say that the reports are "deeply unsettling", with many people in north-east Fife now facing an agonising Christmas because of the prospect of Leuchars closing. However, is it 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 that I recognise a leak when I see one, and this week's story in The Scotsman carried all the usual hallmarks. The story seemed to have emanated from either Westminster or Whitehall and claimed that senior RAF officers were fighting tooth and nail to keep the Marham air base in Norfolk. If Marham were retained, the argument went, either Leuchars or Lossie would have to be scrapped, because the MOD could afford to keep only one strategic air base in Scotland. Allegedly, Leuchars was to close on cost grounds.

In tonight's debate, there will be those who—rightly—will develop the argument about the economic threat to the village of Leuchars and other north-east Fife communities that rely heavily on the air base. Constituents in my part of the world are now in exactly the same state of limbo as the residents of Lossiemouth. If Leuchars closes, unemployment in the area is likely to be at least as bad as in Moray, given that the only other large local employer, the Guardbridge paper mill, closed a couple of years back.

Arguments will also be made about the distinguished and crucial role that RAF Leuchars has played in the United Kingdom's air defences, dating back to 1911. I can add a personal note to that. My father, a Yorkshire lad, was posted north to Leuchars and was one of those who took part in the bomber raid on the German pocket battleship Scharnhorst in Stavanger fjord in February 1941. Badly shot up, his Beaufort torpedo bomber limped back to Leuchars. Had he not made it home—it was touch and go—the local lass he had just married would have been widowed and I would not have been here to speak to tonight's motion. I therefore have strong personal, as well as constituency, reasons to argue the case for RAF Leuchars.

No matter how proud the base's history and no matter how serious the likely local economic impact of its closure, I believe that the MOD must base its ultimate decisions 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. I believe that, by any logical yardstick, be it cost efficiency or future strategic capability, the case for the retention of RAF Leuchars is overwhelming.

Now for a brief history lesson. In the wake of 9/11, and after considering the alternatives, which included 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 Eurofighter Typhoon. That would build on the excellent job that Leuchars had been doing for decades, intercepting and shadowing aircraft from the former Soviet bloc countries as they carried out exercises around the Scottish coast.

Three squadrons of the latest Typhoons would be based at Leuchars to handle air threats from whichever quarter, and the runways would be upgraded and extended for that role. That work has now been carried out, at a total cost of about £37 million, according to the National Audit Office. During that 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 was Leuchars, apparently, to the defence of the realm. Are we now to believe that the RAF is prepared simply to abandon Leuchars and to write off £40 million 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, be they north or south of the border. Clearly, it would be totally illogical on any strategic grounds, because Leuchars was the original and preferred option of the MOD.

I am trying very hard not to get into a Leuchars versus Lossiemouth beauty contest here—that would benefit neither community. I seek consistency in decision making by the MOD, along with answers to the following questions. Does the MOD agree that any defence decisions should be made purely on strategic and cost grounds? What changes that would necessitate a change in operating base 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? Do our defence chiefs believe that it would be cost efficient to write off the £40 million-worth of runway improvements at Leuchars and instead base the Typhoons elsewhere? Can the MOD confirm that the runways at Lossiemouth and Marham are not capable of operating with Typhoons without considerable further expense for upgrading? Those are fairly basic questions, and I have already put them to the MOD and the RAF—so far with little in the way of a satisfactory response.

If we are 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 fall on deaf ears. The MOD tells us that a decision is still months away, but MPs in the Norfolk area are reported to be piling on political pressure for the retention of RAF Marham. Fife MPs, including Gordon Brown, Sir Menzies Campbell and Lindsay Roy, as well as MSPs, have been pressing the case for Leuchars, just as local representatives did for RAF Lossiemouth. Those are perfectly legitimate lobbying ploys, and I am happy to be associated with both the Leuchars and Lossie campaigns. I believe that both bases should be part of our defence capabilities.

The Secretary of State for Defence must take all the evidence on board while ignoring the leaks, the froth and the press speculation. He must then clear-headedly make the appropriate decisions for the future defence of the United Kingdom. In that context, I believe that he will find the case for the Typhoon squadrons to continue operating from Leuchars to be unanswerable. Leuchars was the right choice when the MOD originally made it, and it is the right choice a decade later.

Photo of Iain Smith Iain Smith Liberal Democrat 5:30, 15 December 2010

I thank Ted Brocklebank for securing this important debate. I welcome the cross-party support that there is for the campaign to save RAF Leuchars.

For nearly 100 years, RAF Leuchars has played an important role not just in the defence of Scotland but in the community of my North East Fife constituency. At present, the station is home to 6 squadron, 111 fighter squadron, 6 force protection wing headquarters, the 58 RAF regiment squadron, 612 county of Aberdeen squadron of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force—or the air transportable surgical squadron, as it is better known—the 71 Engineer Regiment (Volunteers), the east of Scotland universities air squadron and 12 air experience flight. RAF Leuchars employs around 1,560 service personnel, and 220 civilian staff are directly employed.

The RAF Leuchars mountain rescue team's role is to provide search and rescue for those who find themselves in trouble in the mountains and remote areas of Scotland. RAF Leuchars also supports military operations abroad: between 5 and 10 per cent of its personnel are engaged in operations and deployments in the middle east, Afghanistan and the Falkland Islands at any one time.

Of course, RAF Leuchars is the home of the only remaining battle of Britain air show—the second-largest non-sporting event in Scotland, attracting tens of thousands of visitors every year and raising funds for the RAF Benevolent Fund, the Royal Air Forces Association and local charities. Personnel from the base are involved in many community activities, supporting charities in and around Leuchars.

There is no doubt but that the underlying strategic defence case for retaining RAF Leuchars is overwhelming. It is in the right place to deliver the quick reaction alert—it is the top priority for RAF Leuchars—which requires fighter aircraft to hold high alert for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year in order to scramble and to intercept unidentified aircraft approaching UK airspace.

Since 2005, RAF Leuchars has engaged around 50 times with foreign aircraft attempting to enter our airspace. If ultimately necessary, fighter aircraft from RAF Leuchars can be above Edinburgh or Glasgow—or even Newcastle or Aberdeen—in a matter of minutes. Leuchars can provide a rapid response to air threats to tier 1 targets such as Torness nuclear power station, petrochemical plants and major cities. Some 80 per cent of Scotland's population is within 80 miles of Leuchars and can be reached in minutes. The key training area for the Typhoon is over the North Sea due east of Leuchars. As Ted Brocklebank said, the reasons that led to RAF Leuchars being chosen as the right location for the new Typhoon fighter remain the same reasons that it is the right location today.

I am not saying that to undermine the role of RAF Lossiemouth. It too has a vital strategic role, but it is a different role from that of RAF Leuchars. That is why I am heartened by the response to questions in the House of Commons from my colleague Sir Menzies Campbell MP by the defence secretary Liam Fox, who said:

"the basing review will be based purely on what gives Britain the best defence network ... it is the Ministry of Defence's job to consider what makes Britain safest." —[Official Report, House of Commons, 13 December 2010; Vol 520, c 662.]

That must mean the retention of RAF Leuchars.

Will the minister say in responding whether he agrees with that point? Does he also agree with the First Minister's reply to my question on 25 November that

"it is not acceptable to close RAF Lossiemouth and ... it is not acceptable to close RAF Leuchars"?—[Official Report, 25 November 2010; c 30911.]

Will the minister give an assurance that the Government will campaign to save RAF Leuchars with every bit as much commitment and vigour as it is campaigning to save RAF Lossiemouth?

On the front page of today's Courier, the First Minister's spokesperson insists that the Scottish Government is "working extremely hard" to save RAF Leuchars from closure. That is welcome news, and I hope that the minister can advise the chamber in exactly what way the Scottish Government is working extremely hard. Will he let us know what it has done to date to support the campaign to save RAF Leuchars and what further action it plans to take in the coming weeks? In that respect, I welcome the intended meeting of Fife representatives, Fife Council and the Fife Chamber of Commerce, although I think that the date may need to be revised.

We all owe a debt of gratitude to the personnel from RAF Leuchars, both past and present, who have put their lives at risks in conflicts from world war two to Afghanistan. RAF Leuchars is more than an air base: it is the heart of the community and deserves our full support.

Photo of Tricia Marwick Tricia Marwick Scottish National Party 5:34, 15 December 2010

The behaviour of the MOD over Leuchars has been disgraceful. It has proved impossible to get information from it about its intentions for Leuchars, and it has refused even to confirm that Leuchars is being considered for closure. Until a few weeks ago, no one had any idea that that was being considered, never mind threatened; that information has become available to us only in the press.

The case for Leuchars remaining open is overwhelming on the grounds of its strategic importance to the UK and the social implications of closure for the local area and the rest of Fife and Tayside.

The MOD is trying to split communities by pitting Leuchars against Lossiemouth. That simply will not happen—we must not allow it to happen. The Scottish National Party supports the retention of all three facilities—Kinloss, Lossiemouth and Leuchars. I am surprised that Iain Smith is not aware of the Scottish Government's stance because we have made it clear. He seeks answers from the Scottish Government, but he should also seek answers from the Liberal-Tory coalition at Westminster, because it will make the final decision, not the Scottish Government.

The campaign for Leuchars has cross-party support, like the one for Kinloss and Lossiemouth, and the support of Fife Council, which has also deplored the MOD's attempts to divide and rule. I note that Peter Grant, the leader of Fife Council, is in the public gallery listening to the debate.

As Ted Brocklebank said, aviation at Leuchars dates back to 1911. Recently, £25 million was invested in upgrading the runway. Leuchars now has one of the best RAF runways in the United Kingdom and is fit for purpose for a further 25 years.

Nearly 1,800 people are directly employed at Leuchars. Businesses, schools and local services rely on the base and the viability of all of them will be put at risk if it closes.

The spin and off-the-record briefings must stop now. The MOD owes it to the personnel and population of Leuchars to make clear whether the base is being considered for closure. However, let us not hold our breath for the MOD. The campaign to retain Leuchars has started already, and I hope that, tonight, the whole Parliament will make its view clear to the Ministry of Defence.

Photo of Claire Baker Claire Baker Labour 5:37, 15 December 2010

I thank Ted Brocklebank for initiating the debate and giving the Parliament an opportunity to express its support for RAF Leuchars. I acknowledge the motion in the name of Iain Smith who, as the constituency member, has made clear his opposition to closure. I also acknowledge the commitment of politicians from throughout Fife and across the political parties, and I welcome the invitation that came this afternoon from the Minister for Parliamentary Business to attend a cross-party meeting in Fife.

Reports in yesterday's Scotsman suggest that the decision to close RAF Leuchars is inevitable.

Such threats are concerning. The proposal to withdraw the RAF from Leuchars is short-sighted and wrong, and I hope that the debate will make clear the Parliament's opposition to it.

Some people have the idea that RAF bases do not contribute to the local economy—that they operate independently, that all economic activity happens within the base and that they can be removed with little impact. That is not the case.

Like many in Fife, I have a family connection with RAF Leuchars. My uncle was an engineer in the RAF and, after being stationed in Germany and Wales, he and his family were stationed at Leuchars. I remember the excitement of visiting their home on the base. Once he had retired from the RAF and moved to Guardbridge, he continued to work on the base at the mess and, like many people in the surrounding community, he still had a personal and economic tie to it.

The air force has been in Leuchars in Fife since 1911. The base is an important centre for the north-east Fife economy. It brings diversity to the local economy—a largely rural economy that is built on small and medium-sized businesses—and makes a valuable contribution to it. Fife Council, along with the Fife Chamber of Commerce, is playing an important role in highlighting the economic impact that closure would have on the local community and in stressing the base's importance to local suppliers.

However, the case for RAF Leuchars is not only its economic contribution, because the base is also part of the local community. It provides day care services, child and youth clubs and a recently opened, purpose-built community centre. Nor is the case for retention only about the local community. I understand that the decision must be driven by the UK's strategic defence interests, but I am concerned that—as with the strategic defence review—it is being driven by money, not military strategy.

I argue that the UK Government's approach to defence is increasingly about the Treasury's approach to cutting the deficit rather than about strategic decision making. A more considered approach to tackling the deficit could mean keeping the bases open. However, I am keen to demonstrate the unity of feeling from members across Fife about RAF Leuchars and to make the defence case as strongly as possible in an attempt to influence the decision positively.

RAF Leuchars occupies a unique position, with 80 per cent of Scotland's population being within 80 miles of the base. Its key role is to maintain the UK's quick reaction alert (interceptor) north, which is pivotal in preventing unidentified aircraft from entering UK airspace and in intercepting them. Its location in Fife is vital to the effectiveness of that system. The decision to restrict the number of Typhoon jets is threatening the viability of RAF Leuchars and driving the move to have only one base. The decision to deploy three squadrons of Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft at Leuchars was based on long-term strategic considerations and, as Ted Brocklebank pointed out, nothing has changed to undermine the rationale for that deployment.

RAF Leuchars provides a long-standing centre of defence excellence that would be difficult to replicate elsewhere. It offers history, continuity and expertise. I believe that it has a future and that it should continue to play a key role in the UK's defence strategy.

Photo of Maureen Watt Maureen Watt Scottish National Party 5:41, 15 December 2010

I, too, congratulate Ted Brocklebank on securing this evening's debate. However, I cannot resist the urge to point out the irony of a Tory MSP being responsible for the debate, given that it is a member of his party at Westminster who is driving the threat to air bases in Scotland. I welcome the fact that at Holyrood, at least, there is clearly cross-party support for the retention of RAF Leuchars—although I note that although Iain Smith has urged us to support his motion, as of yesterday he had not added his name to Mary Scanlon's motion on RAF Lossiemouth.

Just a few short weeks ago, I spoke in the members' business debate on RAF Kinloss and RAF Lossiemouth, and I was among the many people who marched to try to convince the UK Government of the need to retain RAF Lossiemouth because of the vital military functions it provides to the UK and the overwhelming role it plays at the heart of the local community in Moray. The large number of people who turned out to campaign for the retention of RAF Lossiemouth clearly demonstrated how strongly people feel about the need to keep the base, but I know that no one on the march would want the saving of RAF Lossiemouth to come about as the result of another base being ripped out of the heart of another Scottish community. Playing one community off against another, as seems to be happening, is frankly deplorable and it is not a trap that anyone who wishes to see the retention of RAF Lossiemouth and RAF Leuchars should fall into. Both bases have strong cases for their retention, and the message from the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Government and everyone who is campaigning on the issue must be that both bases should continue to play their vital roles.

One of the most damaging aspects of the current discussions is the uncertainty they are causing for service personnel, their families and the communities that rely on the bases for their survival. Whatever the outcome of the decisions that are made on the future of the bases, they need to be made in a far more timely manner than the current glacial speed of the UK Government. The Tory and Lib Dem Government says that it is undertaking a strategic defence review, but it does not say much about the efficacy of the review if decisions on the closure of air bases are already being made.

No one has mentioned the role that the two bases play in mountain and sea rescue, which is a strong part of their training, never mind the vital role that they play for Scots in that work.

Contradictory statements have been made about the criteria that will be used to make the final decision. That is also far from helpful. Given the scale of the impact that any closure would have, the process needs to be clear and transparent. The UK Government needs to make a clear and unambiguous declaration of how and when the decision will be made, to allow people throughout Scotland to make a loud and resounding argument for the retention of RAF Lossiemouth and RAF Leuchars.

The people of Lossiemouth and the north-east have made clear their feeling about the air bases in the north-east. Many people, not least the thousands who attend Leuchars air show annually—I am among those who have enjoyed that spectacular—will be very sad if the UK Government decides to close RAF Leuchars, and I sincerely hope that that will not happen.

Photo of Murdo Fraser Murdo Fraser Conservative 5:45, 15 December 2010

I congratulate my good friend Ted Brocklebank on securing tonight's debate on a subject that is very important for his constituents and mine.

We have heard from MSPs of all parties about the importance of RAF Leuchars to Fife, to Scotland and to the United Kingdom. As has been said, the base plays an integral role in the defence of the UK, and it is why many families call Fife home. As Ted Brocklebank pointed out, it is vital to the Fife economy. Businesses in Fife and further afield, including businesses in Angus and Perth and Kinross, would be affected if the base were to close.

As a number of members have said, RAF Leuchars is more than a base for fighter planes. Iain Smith pointed out that it is home to the Territorial Army's 71 Engineer Regiment, 58 squadron of the Royal Air Force Regiment, the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and the regimental headquarters of the RAF cadets in Scotland.

As Ted Brocklebank pointed out, yesterday, following a speculative story in one newspaper, the MOD said:

"There are no plans to close RAF Leuchars, any suggestion that it will close is pure speculation. The RAF is doing a full study of all its bases across the UK, and this is expected to be finalised in March or April. It is far too early to say what the outcome of that study may be, and any speculation is deeply unsettling for staff at the RAF bases and their local communities."

I think that that statement on RAF Leuchars is welcome, and I completely agree that any rumour or speculation on the base's future is deeply unsettling for those who work there, as well as for the local communities and businesses, the livelihoods of which depend on the base.

Nevertheless, it is important for the debate to set a marker and send a message to the MOD that there is strong feeling and affection for RAF Leuchars, and that we have high regard for its importance to Scotland and the UK. As with RAF Lossiemouth, I believe that we must present a united front in Scotland and say with one voice that RAF Leuchars must not be closed. There must be a genuine cross-party coming together on the issue. Despite Maureen Watt's best efforts, I believe that that is what we have seen in the debate.

A cross-party initiative was launched in defence of Lossiemouth, and the same energy must go into a campaign for Leuchars. It should not be a case of keeping either RAF Leuchars or RAF Lossiemouth, thereby setting one base against the other. We should not squabble for an either/or scenario but campaign and make the case for the retention of both bases. That is why I look forward to the minister making a robust case and issuing a rallying call for the retention of both bases.

2011 will mark 100 years of aviation at Leuchars. In 1911, a balloon squadron of the Royal Engineers set up a training camp in Tentsmuir forest. Squadrons 224 and 233 were stationed at the base in world war two. On the second day of the war, a Hudson of 224 squadron attacked a Dornier 18 over the North Sea, giving Leuchars the proud accolade of being the base to the first British aircraft to engage the enemy in world war two.

I want RAF Leuchars to continue for another 100 years. It has the full support of the Scottish Conservatives.

Photo of Bruce Crawford Bruce Crawford Scottish National Party 5:49, 15 December 2010

I, too, congratulate Ted Brocklebank on securing an extremely important debate and on its timing.

As we have heard, there is no doubt whatever that RAF Leuchars plays a vital role in the defence footprint of Scotland and the rest of the UK. Since the decisions of the strategic defence and security review were announced in October, we have pressed the UK Government and the MOD for the clarity and certainty that members have asked for during the debate. Even before those decisions were announced, we worked closely with all parties in the Parliament to create a united front and to stress the need for the UK Government to take the social and economic implications of its decisions into consideration.

I believe that we need the argument to go beyond the strategic defence reasons. Michael Moore and Danny Alexander agree but, unfortunately, I do not think that we have yet got Liam Fox in that space. What is clear is that we still have a long way to go to convince the UK Government of that principle and to hold it to its commitment to engage with communities.

The strategic defence and security review has cast doubt on the future of all the RAF bases in Scotland. We already know that RAF Kinloss will cease to be an RAF base with the withdrawal of the Nimrod MRA4. The economic impact in Moray is already being felt, and I know that we all share concerns about the implications for the local community and the local economy.

However, our debate today is not about Moray. Today, we are discussing the very real threat to RAF Leuchars. The UK Government is conducting a full bases review, the outcome of which is scheduled for the spring of 2011.

The First Minister has been consistently clear on this issue, which is of national importance to Scotland. Throughout our engagement with the UK Government and the MOD, the retention of all of Scotland's RAF bases has been at the heart of our argument. There are clear strategic arguments for Leuchars to be retained. As others have said, it is currently home to the pilots of 111 fighter squadron, who fly Tornado F3 aircraft, which help to defend our UK airspace but which are being phased out. When 111 squadron goes out of service next spring, Leuchars will, however, continue to play an essential role through 6 squadron, whose Typhoon aircraft and crews will be on high alert to scramble and intercept unidentified aircraft approaching UK airspace.

However, decisions that are based solely on defence capability might not take into account social and economic considerations, both of which are equally important in the current climate. The cross-party submission that we made to the UK Government in September outlined the contribution that RAF Leuchars and the other bases in Scotland make to their local economies and to Scotland in general. All of the major parties in this Parliament supported that submission, which was explicit on the need for decisions to take full consideration of the implications for local communities and the economy.

As Ted Brocklebank and others have said, aviation at Leuchars dates back to 1911, when a balloon squadron of the Royal Engineers set up a training camp in Tentsmuir forest. Today, RAF Leuchars employs 1,560 service personnel and 220 civilian staff.

Officials in the Scottish Government, Scottish Enterprise and Fife Council are already working to undertake an economic impact assessment. By the end of this week, Fife Council, supported by the work of Scottish Enterprise, will send to the UK Government an initial assessment of the economic impact of the base at Leuchars. That will be followed by a wide-ranging assessment of the social consequences of removing 1,800 employees from a village whose total population is about 4,000. I know that the issues affect an area greater than just the village, but we also know that people living on the base spend their money in the local shops and buy local services, and that the supply chain to the base covers a wide range of contracts with private sector companies across Fife and the whole of Scotland. That spend would vanish if the base closed.

As others have said, around £25 million was recently invested in upgrading the runway at Leuchars, which has made it one of the RAF's best runways and one that will be fit for purpose for the next 25 years. A decision to close the base now would seem to dismiss the investment in creating that fantastic facility.

Photo of Helen Eadie Helen Eadie Labour

It is heartening to hear the concern that members from throughout the chamber have expressed.

I am concerned about the 50 incursions and engagements with unidentified aircraft that Iain Smith and others mentioned. I hope that, in discussions with the UK Government, a lot of emphasis will be placed on that, because as well as the economic issues there is an issue about the security of the people of Scotland.

Photo of Bruce Crawford Bruce Crawford Scottish National Party

I have said all along that the strategic defence case for RAF Leuchars is strong, but it was argued to the Scottish Government that we should concentrate only on social and economic issues—which we addressed in our joint submission to the UK Government—because we do not have responsibility for strategic defence issues. I would be happy to get to the point that Helen Eadie describes, but I need to take others with me on that journey.

Earlier this week, I discussed the future of RAF Leuchars with Councillor Grant, the leader of Fife Council, who I am pleased to see is—as Tricia Marwick noted—in the public gallery tonight. Our discussion was constructive, and we agreed that Fife Council, the Scottish Government and Scottish Enterprise will continue to work together to present a united case to protect the future of RAF Leuchars.

I applaud the initiative that Councillor Grant took yesterday in securing a united front across all the parties on the council over the future of RAF Leuchars. I know that Fife Council has asked for a meeting with Liam Fox to set out its concerns.

We will continue to press the MOD and the UK Government to be clear about their timetable for decisions and to do more to work with us to understand the potential consequences of their decision. The First Minister will do so directly when he meets the Secretary of State for Defence on 11 January. He will take the opportunity to press the case for the retention of RAF Leuchars and RAF Lossiemouth.

Our brave servicemen and servicewomen know that if they are divided and not unified they will not win the battle, and we must follow the same approach. We cannot allow the UK Government to operate a process of divide and rule, or to indulge in a process of asking Scotland to rob Peter to pay Paul. We must fight to retain both RAF Leuchars and RAF Lossiemouth in a unified campaign across Scotland. The Scottish Government has been in regular touch with MOD officials and ministers to press the case for the retention of both sites and to protect Scotland's interests in the outcome of the SDSR.

I will meet Fife Council, Fife Chamber of Commerce and Enterprise, Scottish Enterprise, elected members and other parties next week to discuss robust and co-ordinated action to address the unwarranted threat to the base.

Other countries value their air bases. Our neighbours in Norway, for instance, have seven military air bases, but the UK Government seems to want to restrict Scotland to only one. The UK Government's current plans are simply unacceptable, and both bases should be retained.

I thank Ted Brocklebank for bringing the debate to the chamber and I commit to doing all that we can to support the case for retaining RAF Leuchars. I hope that the Conservative and Liberal ministers who hear this debate tonight, which involves Conservative and Liberal MSPs, will listen to what is going on here.

Meeting closed at 17:57.