Q: Mr Lew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been spent in each year since 1990 on upgrading the communications monitoring bases at (a) Menwith Hill and (b) Fylingdales; and from what budget line the money has been drawn. [160711]

A: Mr Geoff Hoon: RAF Menwith Hill is an integral part of a worldwide communications network, which supports UK, US and NATO interests. Information on detailed operations at RAF Menwith Hill, including funding issues, is withheld under exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information on the ground of national security.

The primary function of RAF Fylingdales is to provide the UK and US with early warning of a ballistic missile launch. It is not a communications monitoring base. The last upgrade of the early warning facilities took place in the early 1990s when the old ‘golf balls’, which had become obsolete and difficult to maintain, were replaced with a modern solid state phased array radar. The UK Government contributed a total of £48 million to the costs of this upgrade, from the headquarters Strike Command budget. A yearly breakdown of this figure does not exist. [10.05.2001]

Q: Mr Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will invite hon. Members to join the delegation to meet the defence envoys due to visit the United Kingdom to discuss national missile defense, announced by President Bush on 1 May. [160810]

A: Mr. Speller: No. [10.05.2001]

Q: Lord Judd: What is their analysis of the implications for United Kingdom and European defence policy and for global security of the proposals for the future of missile defence announced and underlined by President Bush; and what action they will take as a result of their analysis.[HL2028]

A: Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: We have studied the ideas put forward by President Bush in his speech with great interest. We welcome the US commitment to further cuts in nuclear weapons and their commitment to consult with allies and Russia. We look forward to consultations with the US over the coming months as their ideas are developed. In these consultations we will take full account of any implications for UK security and defence policy,and we will work closely with the US as close allies with common strategic interests. [09.05.2001]

Q: Mr. Swinney: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost of the clean-up operation on Holy Loch has been, broken down by component. [155315]

A: Dr. Moonie: The total cost of the UK clearance activity in Holy Loch to date is £10.5 million. This covered an initial survey and pilot phase, clearance and disposal, a further survey and environmental management. A further £0.2 million will be spent in financial year 2001-02 as the project winds down. [29.05. 2001]

BMD Debate - 03.05.2001

Mr. Francis Maude (Horsham) (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Government policy towards ballistic missile defence.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister met President Bush at Camp David, he stressed the importance of taking forward proposals for missile defence through close consultation with allies and through dialogue with Russia. OnTuesday, President Bush made a statement--[Interruption.] If I may say so, this is a serious matter that I am endeavouring to take seriously. On Tuesday, President Bush made a statement on his Administration's plans on how to proceed with missile defence. We warmly welcome the strong emphasis placed by President Bush on consultation with close allies. We look forward to discussions next week with the high-level team that he is sending to Europe. We also welcome the commitment to dialogue with Russia in order to develop a new co-operative relationship that is based on openness and mutual confidence. President Putin has also demonstrated his concern about the missile threat from rogue states, and his security adviser recently briefed NATO on Russian proposals for missile defence. We will encourage both the United States and Russia to have constructive dialogue to reach agreement on how to tackle the problem that both have identified.

We also warmly welcome the commitment by President Bush to further cuts in nuclear weapons. We want nuclear arms reduction to be a feature of the new relationship that the United States seeks with Russia. It should be stressed that President Bush's speech was a commitment to a future goal. The technology for missile defence will take some years to develop and the United States has yet to confirm which technical option it will pursue. Nor do we yet know the diplomatic context of any final decision, such as the potential for agreement with Russia. However, we must recognise the reality that there is a growing challenge of missile proliferation. A number of states, of mutual concern to the US and the UK, are developingballistic missile technology.

At Camp David our two leaders agreed: ‘We need to obstruct and deter these new threats.’

In the years that it will take for missile defence to be developed, we will work closely with the US, both to reduce proliferation of ballistic missile technology and to enhance security against those ballistic missiles.

Mr. Maude: Ballistic missile defence is a subject of intense interest and concern throughout the House. Yesterday, the Prime Minister deliberately equivocated when questioned on the subject in the Chamber by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) and the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham). Not 10 minutes later, his official spokesman said that missile defence was a good idea. The House is entitled to feel extremely angry that it is treated in that way. 3 May 2001 : Column 982

Next week, a delegation from Washington comes to London to discuss precisely this matter.Given the overwhelming importance of the issue, and the absolute necessity of the British Government speaking with a single and authoritative voice, will the Foreign Secretary now repeat, word for word, what the Prime Minister's official spokesman said yesterday? How otherwise can Britain expect to have influence with either America or our European partners? Does he believe that British people should have less protection against missile attack than people in America?

Mr. Cook: I am entirely happy to endorse everything that was said by the Prime Minister in the House yesterday when he stressed that it is impossible to give a firm answer until we have firm details. The Opposition's position is that, although we do not yet know whether the system will be sea-based or land-based, whether it will attempt to hit an incoming missile in the boost phase or in the re-entry phase, or whether it will be done with or without agreement, they know the answer that they would give. That is a betrayal of the national interest and of any influence that one may hope to have on the proposal. Yes, I do think--[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the Minister reply.

Mr. Cook: I do think that it is a good thing that the United States President should be able to say to the United States people that they are secure against any ballistic attack. It may or may not be that missile defence will play a part in that, but, as the Prime Minister's official spokesman said yesterday, nothing is inevitable and no answer can be given by Britain until we know the details, and, in that context, the position taken by the Government to look at the detail and the international context and to take a decision in the national interest compares responsibly and favourably with the position taken by the Opposition, who have adopted an attitude that plainly means that they do not expect to be in Government, do not have any intention of taking a responsible approach to the issue, and would put their own party prejudice first rather than the national interest.

Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East): Last August, the all-party Select Committee on Foreign Affairs unanimously agreed a report in which we urged the Government to make it clear to the US Administration that they should not necessarily assume unqualified UK co-operation in national missile defence and urged the Government to articulate Britain's strong concerns about NMD. The Government, in their reply in August 2000, said, in terms, that they value the stability that the anti-ballistic missile treaty provides. Is that still the Government's position? What does consultation mean in practice? What is the agenda? Will my right hon. Friend say clearly that the position taken by the Leader of the Opposition, giving a blank cheque--a yes--to whatever the US Administration says, is absurd?

Mr. Cook: On the anti-ballistic missile treaty, we have constantly stressed to the United States Administration the importance of taking forward any amendment that they wish to make to their agreements with Russia by agreement and through dialogue. 3 May 2001 : Column 983

The speech by President Bush was welcomed in Moscow yesterday by my colleague, Foreign Minister Ivanov, who said that he was pleased that the United States "did not intend to take unilateral steps." He welcomed the offer of dialogue as beginning "an era of strategic stability consultations".

We are not a party to the anti-ballistic missile treaty; the parties to it are the United States and Russia. They must resolve between them the way in which they proceed with the new relationship that President Bush has offered. We have a legitimate interest in its progress through co-operation, not confrontation, and by agreement, not unilaterally. My right hon. Friend is right that members of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs take their duties seriously and consider carefully the impact of their words. I wish that Conservative Front-Bench Members considered as carefully as the Conservative members of the Committee the impact on the rest of the world of the comments that they make for party reasons.

Mr. Menzies Campbell (North-East Fife): I apologise for having to leave shortly. I have a long-standing commitment at the Royal United Services Institute. No matter how the Foreign Secretary describes the matter, there was a substantial difference in emphasis between what the Prime Minister told the House and the official spokesman's comments to journalists within an hour of Prime Minister's questions. It is highly unsatisfactory to reveal a change of emphasis in policy in that way; there is no getting away from that. Should not we be anxious about the absence from President Bush's proposals of any understanding of their impact on other treaties and agreements on the prevention of the proliferation of nuclear weapons? What store can we set by consultation that takes place after rather than before a decision has been made?

Mr. Cook: I say to my right hon. and learned Friend--[Interruption.] I extend the hand of friendship to my right hon. and learned Friend. [Interruption.] I assure Conservative Members that I shall not describe them in the same way.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is too much noise. Opposition Front-Bench Members wanted a statement.

Mr. Keith Simpson (Mid-Norfolk): We are enjoying it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may be enjoying it, but there is other business before the House. If there is more such behaviour, I shall bring discussion on the private notice question to an end.

Mr. Cook: There is no doubt that the United States Administration have made a commitment to proceed with missile defence. However, a range of decisions remain to be taken, and it is important to consult on them. I am confident that all our colleagues in Europe will give the same advice: it is important to proceed through dialogue and agreement, not only with us but with Russia. 3 May 2001 : Column 984

I am glad that the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) gives me the chance to put the record straight about what was said at 4 pm yesterday. [Interruption.] As Conservative Members are so interested in that, I shall describe the Prime Minister's official spokesman's words in full. His statement and what was said in the House are identical. When it was put to him that we would ultimately go along with whatever the United Stated asked us to do, he disagreed, said that nothing was inevitable and that ‘Our decision would depend on the detail of the US plans--something which President Bush clearly understood and accepted.’ That is precisely what the Prime Minister told the House yesterday afternoon.

Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield): It is clear that the Government want to be cautious about this matter before polling day, as they know that there is widespread opposition to it worldwide because of the fear of a new arms race, which could involve this country. The United States supplies us with nuclear weapons, which we pretend are independent. Those weapons are dependent upon the American satellite system and, therefore, on the basis of past experience, British Governments do not go against the decisions of the President. Did the Foreign Secretary hear that Admiral Eugene Carroll--a distinguished retired American admiral--came to the House recently and said that if the scheme went ahead, he hoped that there would be a lot of Greenham commons and a large-scale peace movement? My right hon. Friend, as a passionate and articulate supporter of CND, will understand the importance of such a campaign.

Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his helpful intervention. I can assure him that the Government will be cautious, responsible and realistic throughout the whole period after we are re-elected on polling day. That is precisely why we are taking a measured and considered approach to the question, totally unlike the Conservative party. However, I say to my right hon. Friend that we are the closest ally and one of the oldest friends of the United States. Plainly, that will be reflected in any judgment that we make if we are asked to be helpful.

Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale): Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the early warning radar station at RAF Fylingdales in my constituency has played a crucial role in maintaining peace and security in Britain and the west for more than 40 years? Is he aware that the majority in north Yorkshire overwhelmingly support RAF Fylingdales? However, some of my constituents are alarmed at the more sensational suggestions as to what ballistic missile defence might mean for RAF Fylingdales. Will he take this opportunity to confirm that although no definitive proposals have been put to the Government by America, the clear intention is that the role of Fylingdales will remain limited to early warning radar stations and that there is no question of siting missiles or interceptors in north Yorkshire?

Mr. Cook: At no stage has anybody involved in the debate--either in the United States or Europe--suggested that interceptor missiles be based either in Britain or anywhere in continental Europe. The hon. Gentleman is right; no precise proposal has been put to us and no 3 May 2001 : Column 985 decision has been taken on what the response would be, or indeed where any such facility would be based. It will not necessarily be Fylingdales. ……………………