---

Armed Forces: US Missile Defence

My Lords, this has appropriately been a very sober debate, and I thank all noble Lords who have contributed, in particular the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Giddens, for their particularly useful and expert speeches. It is always a pleasure to be able to thank my former boss for the quality of his contribution to the debate. We on these Benches do not withdraw our criticism of the Government that we have had in effect contempt of Parliament on this issue. This is the first substantive debate on missile defence in either House for five years. To say that there has been the opportunity to table Written Questions in the interim does not provide an alternative, as the Government are well aware. The agreement to allow additional equipment at Menwith Hill was such a proposition, and to slip it out on the last day but one of Parliament sitting last July was, in our opinion, improper. The idea that the letter from the United States of 29 June came as a surprise out of the blue and that there had been no previous correspondence or discussions is a little hard to take. My suggestion about the Defence Secretary’s Statement in late April was that of course discussions must have been under way then. The fact that that correspondence was completed on 16 July, after which there were seven sitting days of Parliament still remaining, allowed plenty of time for an earlier Statement, preferably an Oral Statement. It was not provided, and that was not adequate. We are not reassured by the use of that familiar phrase, ““The UK has no plans””. It has been used on many previous occasions while negotiations were under way, after which we are told, ““Agreement has just been reached””. I see that in the letter of 17 October from Des Browne to Sir Menzies Campbell, he wrote: "““I can assure you that the Government has not made any decision about hosting interceptors in the UK, nor are there any plans for us to do so””." That gives some substance to the suggestion by the Daily Telegraph that negotiations were indeed under way. We on these Benches have made some play of the sovereignty issue, and we will continue to do so, because the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, that we have little controversy in Britain about the effective subordination of sovereignty and security to the United States relates to the question of how far we share sovereignty with our partners in the European Union. We will come back to that. As to how much Menwith Hill remains subject to British control, I have had discussions with local MPs and county councillors in north Yorkshire about the degree of access that it is possible for anyone to have inside the wire at Menwith Hill and about the role of the MoD police, operating under US control, at Menwith Hill, which leave me extremely unhappy about the extent to which it remains effectively under British sovereignty. Several noble Lords have set out very powerfully our commitment to a multilateral approach, first within NATO and, secondly, within a broader context. The question of Iran has come up. Clearly, we need to address on another occasion—perhaps during a debate in this House—the question of how the West handled its relations with Iran. This House deserves a full debate on relations between the West—both NATO and the European Union—and Russia. I found the Foreign Affairs Committee report from the other place of last November on relations between Russia and the West extremely helpful in preparing my speech. I am conscious that currently there is an inquiry by our EU Committee under way on relations between Russia and the EU. When that report is complete, the Government should allow time in this House for a substantial debate not just on relations between Russia and the EU but on relations between Russia and NATO, so that we can address the many overlapping issues between the missile defence debate and the involvement of Russia in global security issues, about which we have concerns. Having made those points, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers. Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.