|
May 2002
|
Missile Defence & ABM TreatyNational Missile Defence,
Written/Commons 2
May 2002 : Column: 965W
Dr.
Tonge (Liberal Democrat International Development Spokesperson):
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions his Department has had with (a) EU member states and (b)
the EU Commissioner for External Relations, regarding a European Union view on national missile defence. [53599] Mr.
Hoon:
None. Missile defence is not a matter for the European Union. Dr.
Tonge:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what agreements have been made with the USA regarding the use of UK facilities at (a)
Fylingdales and (b) Menwith Hill. [53585] Mr.
Ingram:
The use of the Ballistic Missile Early Warning Station at RAF Fylingdales by the United Kingdom and the United States is governed
by an exchange of notes between the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the American ambassador, dated 15 February 1960. As with other UK bases that are
made available to the United States visiting forces, the use of RAF Menwith Hill is governed by the NATO Status of Forces Agreement of 1951 and additional confidential
arrangements. Dr.
Tonge:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions his Department has had with UK firms bidding for work on the
US-initiated programme of national missile defence; and if he will make a statement. [53598] Mr.
Hoon:
Expertise relating to missile defence was developed by a number of the United Kingdom companies during the Technology Readiness
and Risk Assessment Programme sponsored by the Ministry of Defence. An unclassified summary of the report was placed in the Library of the House on 26 February 2002.
Regular discussions with firms take place as part of continuing activity in this area. Missile Defence, Written/Commons
2
May 2002 : Column: 965W
Mr.
Hancock:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the prospects are for a missile defence system that can cover the European
countries of NATO; and if he will make a statement. [53692] Mr.
Hoon:
The United States has made clear that it wishes to see friends and allies protected from the emerging threat posed by ballistic
missiles. However, it has yet to put forward any detailed plans. National Missile Defence, Written/Commons
7
May 2002 : Column: 4W
Dr.
Tonge:
To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions her Department has had with UK firms bidding for
work on the US-initiated programme of National Missile Defence; and if she will make a statement. [53596] Alan
Johnson:
A decision to bid for work on the US-initiated programme of National Missile Defence is a commercial one for individual firms to
make. DTI Ministers and officials have regular meetings with UK aerospace and defence companies on a range of issues and is supportive of decisions to bid for work in
this and in other areas. National Missile Defence, Written/Commons
9 May 2002 : Column: 306W
Dr.
Tonge:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions his Department has had with UK firms
bidding for work on the US-initiated programme of national missile Defence; and if he will make a statement. [53597] Mr.
Bradshaw:
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has not had any direct discussions with UK firms in relation to specific bids related to
current US proposals for missile defence. Staff at the British embassy in Washington regularly give general advice to UK firms wishing to do business with the US
Department of Defense (including the Missile Defense Agency) but have not had any discussions on specific bids on the US missile defence programme. Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty, Written/Commons
21
May 2002 : Column: 167W
Llew
Smith:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the contribution of the anti-ballistic missile treaty to
strategic stability. [57978] Mr.
Hoon:
We have always valued strategic stability between the United States and Russia, a stability to which the anti-ballistic missile
treaty made a major contribution throughout the cold war. But it is important to recognise that the strategic context is changing and that it is stability we value rather
than one particular means for achieving it. To this end we welcome the progress that the United States and Russia have made towards a new strategic framework, in
particular their recent agreement on major reductions in nuclear weapons.
|
|
|
