Hugh Bayley (City of York): When he last discussed strategic missile defence with his NATO counterparts. [83958]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): NATO Defence Ministers last discussed missile defence formally in June 2002. At the recent NATO summit in Prague on 21 November, NATO Heads of Government agreed to examine options for addressing the increasing missile threat to alliance territory, forces and population centres through an appropriate mix of political and defence efforts.

As I promised the House on 17 October, I have today placed further analytical and discussion material in the Library of the House which I hope will contribute to the debate on the role that active missile defence might play within a comprehensive strategy for tackling the potential threat from ballistic missiles. The paper will also be distributed widely and will be available on the Ministry of Defence website.

Hugh Bayley : Many of my constituents and other people in Yorkshire are concerned about the potential implications of missile defence. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that, unlike the Conservatives, who seem willing to embrace missile defence almost without question, the Government will make sure that their discussion document is widely circulated so that they can proceed with a thorough and careful consideration of the arguments for and against in the light of views expressed by members of the public?

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations and delighted to give him that assurance on behalf of the Government. As I told the House on 17 October, if there is a United States request for the use for missile defence purposes of Fylingdales or any other United Kingdom facility, we will consider it seriously. The Government would agree to such a request only if the security of the United Kingdom and the alliance would ultimately be enhanced.

Mr. Paul Keetch (Hereford): I welcome the document that the Secretary of State has produced today and thank him for the advance notice of it. However, I should like to press him on the principles to which he has just alluded. Can he assure the House that the UK will not participate in any missile defence scheme or allow facilities to be used on UK soil unless it enhances the security of the United Kingdom and, moreover, enhances the security of all the alliance, not just specific members of it?

Mr. Hoon: I have said this on a number of occasions, but it bears repetition, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me the opportunity of saying again that the Government would agree to such a request only if the security of the United Kingdom and the alliance would ultimately be enhanced. On the second part of his question, it is important to bear in mind what I said on 17 October. The United States is developing a test bed—the means whereby it can examine the appropriate kind of architecture that might ultimately be required. In those circumstances, it is not possible to give the hon. Gentleman precisely the assurance that he requires because the United States is not yet in a position to do that.

Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough and Whitby): My right hon. Friend will know from his geography lessons that my constituency is a quarter of a mile from RAF Fylingdales. I wrote to him welcoming his statement on 17 October and also invited him to participate at the earliest possible opportunity in a local public debate with people in Whitby and the Esk valley. In the light of the welcome publication of his document today, could he offer that facility to my constituents so that they can understand what is affecting this important issue? In that way, we can ensure that our part of the world, along with our colleagues in NATO, is included in the debate.

Mr. Hoon: I have had the opportunity of visiting both RAF Fylingdales and my hon. Friend's constituency, and I look forward to the opportunity of doing so again.

Mr. Malcolm Savidge (Aberdeen, North): As missile defence is not a priority according to the MOD's previous White Paper, to the present and previous Chiefs of the Defence Staff and to the national intelligence estimates of the US Congress post-11 September, can my right hon. Friend reassure us that the document that has just been made available is not evidence that Government policy is being dictated less by intelligence and British interests than by the ideological obsessions of the Bush Administration, with Opposition Front-Bench Members seeking to be more servilely subservient?

Mr. Hoon: I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that Opposition Front-Bench Members are not influencing the nature of the Government's policy in this area. It is none the less important, on the occasions when my hon. Friend and I have the opportunity to debate these matters, that he consider the current evidence rather than some of the historical evidence.

Mr. Robert Syms (Poole): Which (a) current and (b) planned British military facilities and equipment could contribute to missile defence. [83964]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The United States Administration have yet to make specific decisions about the precise future architecture of a United States missile defence system. However, as I told the House on 17 October, the US missile defence programme is gathering momentum, and there are plans to develop and evaluate options for a basic missile defence system. In that context, the United States has indicated that one of the options it is considering would involve an upgrade of the early warning radar at Fylingdales. We will consider any such request seriously and will agree to it only if we are satisfied that the overall security of the United Kingdom and the alliance will ultimately be enhanced.

Mr. Syms : Why are we being so timid? There is no doubt that the US will make such a request. The Government seem more concerned about opinion on their Back Benches than with doing the right thing for Britain.

Mr. Hoon: Over many years I have found it fairly sensible to answer questions only once they have been asked.

Written Questions:

Mr. Mullin: What plans he has for a missile defence system for the UK; and if he will make a statement. [83987]

Mr. Hoon: The Government understands the role that missile defences could play as part of a comprehensive strategy to respond to the potential threat from ballistic missiles. We are currently examining whether the range of responses we have now would be enhanced by participation in active missile defence. I have today placed further analytical and discussion material in the Library of the House which I hope will contribute to the debate on the issues involved.

Lawrie Quinn : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress his Department has made in analysing the implications for the UK of missile defence; and if he will make a statement. [83990]

Mr. Hoon: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin).

Mr. Hoban : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the Government's policy is on ballistic missile defence. [83991]

Mr. Hoon : I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mulling).

Mr. Keetch: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what Memoranda of Understanding have been signed in relation to the use by the USA of British facilities for missile defence activities. [85376]

Mr. Hoon: None.

Patrick Mercer: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects preparations to begin for British involvement in the US-led missile defence system. [85665]

Mr. Hoon: The United Kingdom already has close access to US research and development work on missile defence, taking part in collaborative research and information exchange on ballistic missile defence technologies. UK industry is also playing an active role. UK expertise in such areas will enable us to consider and make informed assessments about technical advances in missile defences. This will contribute significantly to our ability to judge the potential benefits to the UK of possible participation in further US development of missile defences. In order to inform debate on the role that active missile defence might play within a comprehensive strategy for tackling the potential threat from ballistic missiles, I am publishing today a public discussion document on missile defence.

Patrick Mercer: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role he expects Fylingdales and Menwith Hill to play in the US-led missile defence system; and what improvements have been made to the facilities at these sites to enable them to fulfil this role. [85666]

Mr. Hoon: No decisions have been taken about the possible future role of any United Kingdom bases in a missile defence system. The radar at RAF Fylingdales could, if upgraded, provide a useful asset to such a system depending on the architecture chosen. No improvements have been made relating to any potential future role, although there is a continuing programme of maintenance and life extension at RAF Fylingdales to ensure that it can continue to fulfil its current functions.

A decision was taken in 1997 to base the European relay ground station for the Space Based Infra-Red System (SBIRS) project at RAF Menwith Hill. SBIRS is a satellite system designed to give early warning of the launch of ballistic missiles anywhere in the world. It updates the existing but ageing defence support programme (DSP) satellites and is needed irrespective of any decision on missile defence.