July 2001
Lords Debates on Missile Defence, Menwith Will and Fylingdales

Lords - debate 5 Jul 2001

Column 870

Menwith Hill and Fylingdales: Security

Lord Chalfont asked Her Majesty's Government: Whether the security arrangements at Menwith Hill and Fylingdales are satisfactory.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, in light of the recent incursions by demonstrators at Royal Air Force Menwith Hill, Her Majesty's Government recognise that the security arrangements in place are not satisfactory in relation to this public order threat. It is not Government policy to comment on specific security measures, but security at RAF Menwith Hill and RAF Fylingdales will be reviewed and appropriate remedial action will be taken.

Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. Does he agree that although it would be wrong to suggest that these silly people from Greenpeace are a security threat, what happened suggests that it might be possible for serious intruders with a serious design to get into two very important and sensitive establishments?

Lord Bach: My Lords, what happened was serious but the noble Lord is right to say that the people who took this action were peaceable protestors whose aims were limited. It is important to point out that a peaceable protest required a proportionate response. The noble Lord knows that minimum force that is proportionate to the event is to be used and that this event received a proportionate response. Equally, if there had been a serious attempt of the kind to which the noble Lord referred--an attempt to break into the operational functional mission of the base--the response would have been proportionate. That would have been a much more serious eventuality.

Lord Elton: My Lords, is it the case, as was reported, that some of the intruders were at large in the compound for a considerable time before they attracted the attention of the security forces? Would that have been the case if they had not been peaceable intruders?

Lord Bach: My Lords, some of those who got in were within the outer perimeter--there are several fences at this establishment. The noble Lord is right--some protestors were within the outer perimeter but it was known that they were there. That outer perimeter is not as secure as the inner perimeters because families live on the base inside the outer perimeter. A balance has to be kept between the requirements of the operation there and the needs of the families to live everyday lives.

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, as the former chair of the North Yorkshire Police Authority, noble Lords will know that I have always taken a keen interest in liaison matters between the Ministry of Defence Police and the local police service. Today, the deputy chief constable came to brief me carefully on operational matters concerning the demonstrations at Menwith Hill. I was pleased that the noble Lord did not in any way criticise the North Yorkshire Police Force, which was responsible for looking after the outer perimeter.

Noble Lords: Question!

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, will the noble Lord please accept that there has to be good and close liaison between the local police and the Ministry of Defence Police? Does he recognise that we must be able to see with clarity that the two responsibilities are entirely different?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am delighted to answer the question of the noble Baroness, who has huge experience in this field, particularly in the area of England that we are discussing. She is right--in my view, no criticism is to be attached to anyone. We agree with the propositions that she put forward.

Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, while welcoming my noble friend's response to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, it is clear that although the event at Menwith Hill was good humoured and peaceable, there is still the risk, as my noble friend acknowledged, that demonstrators can turn nasty. That raises the risk that harm or injury may be caused to peaceful demonstrators or to staff in the targeted establishment. Are there any other establishments like Fylingdales and Menwith Hill, which could become alternative targets if security is tightened at those two establishments? Will the Government make it absolutely clear that they remain committed to fulfilling the obligation that people and places shall be safeguarded from the risk of harm as a result of unsatisfactory demonstrations, such as those at Akrotiri earlier this week?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I can answer my noble friend in the affirmative. We are looking at other possible bases and we do indeed take what happened seriously. I entirely agree with what he said. While we must of course recognise people's right to protest and to demonstrate--that is the mark of a free society--irresponsible actions by protestors, such as we have seen in this case, put them at risk of coming to harm. It is then our duty--the duty of the Ministry of Defence--to return them to a place of safety. I hope that noble Lords appreciate that when the protestors entered the base, it became our duty to ensure that they were not themselves harmed. Fulfilling that duty in turn places our security personnel at risk of harm. I agree with my noble friend for those reasons.

Lord Burnham: My Lords, before the election, we fought off a proposal by the government to extend the powers of the Ministry of Defence Police. It seems that we were absolutely right. Where were the Ministry of Defence Police, and why were they not fulfilling their proper function, which is to guard Ministry of Defence premises? Would it not be appropriate to do that before their powers were extended more widely outside Ministry of Defence premises?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I have to say that the noble Lord is going too far. A number of Ministry of Defence Police were on site--they work a shift system--and some were at the gate. I shall tell the noble Lord what happened. Thirty people alighted from a bus and a truck at the main gate and barged past the main gate guard. A number of those people were stopped by the normal number of Ministry of Defence Police who were on duty. Other people went to another part of the four-mile perimeter and scaled the perimeter fence using ladders that they had specifically brought for the occasion. That is what happened; no criticism is to be levelled at the Ministry of Defence Police who were present. I am rather surprised that the noble Lord sought to do that.

Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, should not those who protest by attacking the Armed Forces and their bases be reminded by Her Majesty's Government that their freedom and right to peaceful protest was gained for them by the victories won by the Armed Forces in years gone by?

Lord Bach: My Lords, that is an extremely important point made by the noble and gallant Lord. Not only were victories won, but won at a huge cost to those members of the Armed Forces who fought for us then. It is perhaps something that protesters may care to think about when they next set out on their task.

5 Jul 2001 : Column 873

Lord Avebury: My Lords, without in any way criticising either the Ministry of Defence or the local police, does the Minister agree that the demonstrators highlighted the fact that new construction works have taken place at Menwith Hill? Do not the Government consider that if those works are in preparation for Star Wars 2, prior authority should have been sought from Parliament?

Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord, with his experience, will not be surprised at my answer. It is not and never has been government policy, whatever government is in power, to comment on specific security measures.

Lords 9 Jul 2001

Column 930

Missile Defence Systems

Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government: What arrangements they are making to evaluate the relevance of a missile defence system to their national and international security priorities, with particular reference to the outcome of the last defence review.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, consistent with the Strategic Defence Review, we continue to assess the potential role of missile defence systems as part of a broad ranging response to missile and weapons of mass destruction proliferation. Our position of monitoring developments, both in the threat and in defensive technologies, our involvement in NATO studies and our dialogue with allies, all help us to make informed judgments on security priorities. But it would be premature to decide to acquire a ballistic missile defence capability.

Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Does he agree that any missile defence system will have immense expenditure implications with far-reaching consequences for our existing defence strategy introduced after the recent defence review? Therefore, does he also agree that it is absolutely essential that, before we drift into any commitment from which it may be increasingly difficult to extricate ourselves, there is a convincing threat analysis that demonstrates why such a system is necessary and could be effective? Does my noble friend agree that we must be clear about the consequences for arms control and disarmament, which must remain a cornerstone of global security? Is not terrorism, in its nuclear, biological and chemical dimensions, a much more immediate threat? Is that being addressed adequately?

Lord Bach: My Lords, there will be no drift at all into such a defence system. Perhaps I may quote from the SDR published some three years ago. It states that systems,

"may play a role within a balanced spectrum of capabilities to counter the risks posed by chemical and biological weapons and their means of delivery. But technologies in this area are changing rapidly and it would, at this stage, be premature to decide on acquiring such a capability".

It went on to say:

"We will, however, monitor developments in the risks posed by ballistic missiles and in the technology available to counter them, participate in NATO studies, and work closely with our Allies to inform future decisions".

That was two or three years ago and it is exactly the policy that we have followed since then. What we said then applies now. Of course, my noble friend is right that any system would be very expensive. As far as disarmament is concerned, the goal of Her Majesty's Government is the global elimination of nuclear weapons. That remains our policy.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, in the course of such monitoring, has the Minister come across the recently published internal US Defence Department study that indicates that the testing of missile defences is, first, long-delayed, secondly, subject to a high level of failure, and, thirdly, does not take into account the use of sophisticated decoys? Has he seen the article in the contemporary issue of Foreign Affairs by Mr John Newhouse, an outstanding expert, who argues that the single greatest threat to global security arises from the growing and dangerous disrepair of the Russian strategic forces?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I have not had the benefit of seeing either of the articles to which the noble Baroness refers. However, she can be assured that I will have seen them by this time tomorrow afternoon. I take great note of what she says and I know that she understands our policy, which we have made clear, that in considering any future request from the United States implications for United Kingdom security will be a major consideration.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, has not the noble Lord, Lord Judd, put the cart before the horse? Is it not the policy of government that defence review and defence provision should take account of the reality of missile defence and is not that matter under continuous consideration?

Lord Bach: My Lords, of course it is under continuous review, and that is how I answered my noble friend Lord Judd. But there is no question of our drifting into a policy of ballistic missile defence. We will make a decision on the matter when we feel that it is right, in our interest, to do so. At the present time, we believe that it is premature.

Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that his confirmation that none of these later developments affect the Government's commitment to the achievement of a nuclear-free world will receive world-wide support and acclaim?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, who has shown a huge interest in this subject throughout a long and distinguished career.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, the Minister gave me a complete brush-off when a few days ago I asked him about new construction at Menwith Hill. It is a matter of common knowledge that new radomes have appeared on the site and that pictures of them have appeared in national newspapers. Surely therefore it is a matter which we can discuss in this House.

The Minister says that there is no question of our drifting into a national missile defence policy. However, when we see those new constructions at Menwith Hill, and in the absence of any statement by the Minister or his colleagues, are we not entitled to draw a conclusion as to what they consist of?

Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord can draw whatever conclusions he likes. The fact remains--I said this last Thursday in the House--that it has never been the policy of governments of any colour to comment on specific security measures. Tempting as the noble Lord may be in the way he poses the question for the second time in four days, I shall not comment further.

Lord Burnham: My Lords, the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred to ballistic missile defence in the context of the Strategic Defence Review. When that review was put together three years ago, the BMD was not in consideration. Can the Government assure us that if it is agreed to go ahead with BMD the money will be made available over and above the existing defence budget?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am not in a position to give that assurance to the noble Lord today. Let us take things one stage at a time. At this stage no decision has been made and none is imminent. We do not yet know what the United States may or may not ask for. When we know that, I shall be in a position to answer the noble Lord better.