UNITED STATES AIRCRAFT (BASES, UNITED KINGDOM) (Hansard, 19 July 1960)

§ 42. Mr. Healey
asked the Prime Minister to what extent it is his policy to permit the continuation of weather flights by U2 aircraft from Lakenheath airfield.

§ 43 and 45. Mr. Warbey
asked the Prime Minister (1) whether, in discussing 246 with President Eisenhower a revision of the understanding regarding the use of United States bases in this country, he will take into account the changes in nuclear strategy since 1951;

§ 46 and 47. Mr. Zilliacus
asked the Prime Minister (1) whether he will now require the United States Government either to give an undertaking to cease violating Soviet territorial sovereignty by reconnaissance flights by British-based aircraft and to accept British control over every United States aeroplane initiating a flight from bases in the United Kingdom, or to remove all United States bases from this country;

§ 48. Mr. de Freitas
asked the Prime Minister under what conditions United States reconnaissance aircraft are allowed to operate from the Royal Air Force Station, Brize Norton, and other Royal Air Force airfields.

§ 50. Mr. Rankin
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of recent happenings, he proposes to continue his policy of allowing United States armed forces to occupy bases in this country.

§ 51. Mr. Dodds
asked the Prime Minister, in view of the widespread concern in this country resulting from the disclosure that a United States aeroplane based on this country was shot down whilst flying over or near Russian territory, what action he has taken to prevent such flights by British based United States aircraft.

§ 54. Mr. Emrys Hughes
asked the Prime Minister if, in his negotiations with President Eisenhower on the future use of United States bombing bases in Great Britain, he has placed before him an account of the possibilities of explosions 247 of hydrogen bombs over this country, as described in White Papers on defence and civil defence.

§ 55. Mr. Donnelly
asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to make a statement regarding the new arrangements that have been reached with the Government of the United States of America regarding flights by United States aircraft from bases on British territory.

§ The Prime Minister
The understanding relating to the use by United States forces of bases in this country in an emergency has often been referred to in the House. It was first reached between Mr. Attlee and President Truman in October, 1951, and was confirmed in January, 1952, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford and President Truman. It was confirmed again with President Eisenhower's Administration in March, 1953, when Sir Anthony Eden visited Washington as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
That understanding relates in terms to the use of the bases in an emergency, which is, after all, the most important aspect of the problem. But, of course, ever since the United States Air Force returned to this country in 1948 at the time of the Berlin airlift, there has been consultation between the two Governments at various levels about all sorts of matters concerning the bases. On some matters, for example finance, there have been written agreements. On others it has seemed better to rely on ad hoc discussions in the light of changing circumstances. In general, I think all this has worked well; but, as I told the House on 12th July, I have taken up with President Eisenhower the question whether there should be any modification or improvement of these arrangements in certain particular respects. Discussions are proceeding in Washington at official level and are making good progress. I hope that officials will soon be in a position to make recommendations to their Governments.
It remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government to permit the use of bases in this country by United States forces, for I believe that this arrangement is in the common interest of all.

§ Mr. Healey
Is the Prime Minister aware that there will be wide agreement 248 in the House that a much more precise agreement between the United States and Britain is required to govern the peacetime use of these bases? But there will be very little understanding in the House why Her Majesty's Government should have waited this long time before seeking to regularise the matter. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer the Question on the Order Paper regarding the use of Lakenheath base for U2 flights? In particular, will he clear up the persistent confusion between himself and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Air, who maintains that the U2 flights admitted to have taken place were concerned with secret intelligence, whereas the Prime Minister wrongly informed the House last week that they were innocent weather flights?

§ The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman has misrepresented me. I did not make, and would not have made, any change in the policy, which has been followed by all Governments, of not making statements on matters of intelligence, or which approach intelligence. However, in a supplementary question the point was raised as to some evidence which had been given before the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee and I undertook to look into the matter. I considered the evidence and pointed out—and I quoted it—that it referred to weather flights and not to flights over Soviet territory.

§ Mr. Healey
I studied with great care the evidence which the Prime Minister was kind enough to send me. Is he aware that, in the first place, there is no reference in it as to the direction of these flights? The flights are simply referred to as weather flights by Mr. Dryden, who also referred to the flight of the U2 aircraft brought down in Sverdlovsk as a weather flight. It was the unanimous agreement of the American Press in reporting Mr. Dryden's evidence that it was clear that he had no idea of the precise function of the U2 aircraft which had been assigned to the N.A.S.A. Is it not also clear that the Prime Minister has not the slightest idea of what these aircraft were doing?

§ The Prime Minister
If the hon. Gentleman attached so little weight to 249 the evidence given to the Senate Corn-mince, I do not know why he quoted it. I quoted it because I thought it was courteous to do so as he had made reference to it. Otherwise I would have stood on time-honoured practice by not referring to it in detail. As to why it has taken so long to regularise the arrangements, this form of flights has been going on for twelve years. They have been from time to time adjusted and ad hoc arrangements made, as I have already said. Again, as I have already said, I think that it is always right to see whether we need to improve them and reconsider them, or to make changes in our mutual arrangements in the light of present circumstances.

§ Mr. Warbey
Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the question of changes in nuclear strategy since 1951? We were then dealing with atom bombs, whereas now we are dealing with hydrogen bombs capable of annihilating the entire country in an hour or two. In addition, the present American nuclear strategy is based on the conception of multiplying the number of targets so as to draw the enemy's fire, with this country having the function of providing one of the targets. Does this not alter the situation?

§ The Prime Minister
Of course, the situation has altered, and is continually altering. We must take account of all relevant facts. This kind of reconnaissance flights—I shall not say U2 flights, for they were not in existence—have been taking place by both the United States and the British Air Forces for at least twelve years. These flights are perfectly legal and are in international air space. I want to make that perfectly clear.
The House knows the views of the hon. Member. He does not want to have American bases here at all. It is an understandable view, but the mass of the House and of the people regard the American alliance as an essential part of the safety of the free world.

§ Mr. Zilliacus
Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer Question No. 46? Will the new agreement include an obligation on the part of the United States to observe the prescriptions of international law, and the obligations of the United Nations 250 Charter, in our relations with the Soviet Union? Will there be a prohibition in the new agreement against violating the air sovereignty of any country for any purposes by flights initiated from this country?

§ The Prime Minister
That does not arise, because President Eisenhower has stated that these over-flights will not take place. I do not think I want to use such strong words as "new agreement". I want to see whether we can bring the existing operations, either by the main understanding, or from time to time agreed methods, into close harmony and closely related to the serious factors which have developed in the world today.

§ Mr. de Freitas
Since all the flight plans are shown to the Royal Air Force, will the right hon. Gentleman give instructions that any flight plans which show a flight near Soviet territory are brought to the attention of Ministers?

§ The Prime Minister
I understand from what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air said that flight plans constitute a procedure chiefly connected with the requirements of safety and identification as planes come in and out of this country. That is the main purpose of the plans. This whole question will be reconsidered in my discussion with the President. I take note of what the hon. Member said.

§ Mr. Rankin
Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many bases in the United Kingdom are being used for these U2 flights? Is he aware that the Prestwick air base is the nearest to Moscow? Can he say whether the American base there is being used for these flights?

§ The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is confused. The main purpose of these Questions was about the RB-47 flights. Only one airfield, as far as I know, had the other form of aircraft.

§ Mr. Rankin
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that in fairness the Prime Minister ought to know that my Question—— [Interruption.]—It is only fair—

§ Mr. Speaker
I cannot hear what it is. Let us hear it.

§ Mr. Rankin
It is only fair that the Prime Minister should know that my Question was put down before the flight he referred to.

§ Mr. Speaker
That is not a point of order.

§ Mr. Dodds
The Prime Minister made great play, when last he answered this question, of the fact that many of the objections come from those people who do not want American bases here at all. Is he aware that I have spoken to many responsible people who are appalled, as a result of evidence that bas emerged, that the Prime Minister knows very little about this matter, and that one slip could be a disaster for the British nation? In view of that, and the evidence that also is available, there are many people who doubt that any American politicians will be able to control successfully the American military machine, and as a consequence there will now be more doubts than ever as to the value of the American bases here. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it will be up to him to convince them that he will get some form of control that will keep our fate in our hands and not in American hands?

§ The Prime Minister
I have taken note of the hon. Member's views, which he expresses with his usual force. But I do not think that his premises are correct. I will try, in the statement which I shall now make, to take some of these matters further.

§ Mr. Emrys Hughes
Did the right hon. Gentleman believe, and does he now believe, the statement to the world by the State Department in Washington about the flight of the aircraft which was shot down over Sverdlovsk? Is he aware that the world now knows that the Americans told a thumping lie about this business? Is he also aware that last week he made a contemptuous reference to the N.U.R., but that the N.U.R. is a far more responsible body than the Cabinet that went into war over Suez?