HC Deb 19 July 1961 vol 644 cc1248-54
The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Julian Amery)

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I would like to make a statement.

Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States of America have agreed to establish a ground read-out station of the Missile Defence Alarm System, MIDAS. This will be situated at the Royal Air Force Station, Kirkbride, in Cumberland. The text of the agreement is available as a White Paper in the Vote Office.

MIDAS is now under development by the United States Government. It will consist of a number of space satellites equipped with infra-red apparatus to detect ballistic missiles in the early stages of their flight. Information recorded in the satellites will be relayed back to read-out stations, including the one at Kirkbride.

This information will complement that provided by the ballistic missile early warning radar system. It will give even earlier warning than the ballistic missile early warning system; and will make it even more difficult for an enemy to launch a successful surprise attack on Western strategic deterrent forces. Our contribution co this new system will thus be of direct value to the Royal Air Force, the United States air force and to the forces of our other North Atlantic Treaty allies.

Kirkbride will be commanded and operated by the Royal Air Force. Warning information from the MIDAS satellites will be available simultaneously to operations centres in the United Kingdom and the United States, and to the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe.

The United States will provide and install the special equipment for the station and the communications required to link it with the United States. The United States will also defray, in the first instance, the cost of the technical works services required to make the station operational. The United Kingdom will repay these costs within an agreed limit, after the station becomes operational.

The United Kingdom will provide the land, domestic accommodation, and certain existing buildings as well as the communications and equipment required to link the station with our own authorities. The cost of spare parts for the special equipment provided by the United States will be borne by the United States Government, for the first five years of operation. The cost of maintaining this equipment on the site will be borne by the United Kingdom Government, as will the other running costs of the station.

The capital cost of the station to this country is expected to be in the region of £2 million to £3 million. Its capital cost to the United States is expected to be about £10 million. But this latter figure is, of course, a very small part of the projected United States expenditure on the system as a whole. The United States Government have already allotted £150 million for MIDAS, of which well over half has already been spent.

Mr. Mason

Now that it appears that the Government have acknowledged the sky spy plan of America and that we are to assist them to relay information following the orbiting of MIDAS, do I take it that it is to stop there, or is it the Government's intention eventually to afford the Americans facilities at Woomera and possibly also at Christmas Island, so that we will have further launching places to get a global coverage for spying?

Mr. Amery

"Spying" is an altogether inappropriate word to use in this case. It is simply a question of increasing our defensive posture. I do not think that anybody can object to this, unless he has offensive intentions. My statement referred exclusively to Kirkbride, in Cumberland.

Dr. D. Johnson

Is my hon. Friend aware that in Carlisle and the surrounding area there will be a general welcome for the announcement that he has just made, both on the basis of Anglo-American co-operation and as a stimulus to local employment?

Mr. Amery

I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Mulley

No doubt other questions will occur to us when we have had an opportunity of studying the White Paper, but I want to ask the Secretary of State these questions right away. First, when is it expected that the system will be available, because the announcement in connection with MIDAS III, which was launched a week ago, was that it is still experimental. Secondly, can he tell us a little more about how this system will fit into the existing ballistic missile early warning system? Will it be wholly additional, or will it mean some readjustment in the existing plan? Thirdly, to what extent will the information be fed into the European defence system and N.A.T.O.? Is there any possibility of any N.A.T.O. infrastructure funds being available for the costs involved?

Finally, can the Secretary of State do something to clear up the financial arrangement? Apparently there is the rather unusual arrangement that the United States Government will pay and we will repay them. Is our commitment limited to the £2 to £3 million, or do we, in due course, also have to repay the balance of the £10 million which I think the right hon. Gentleman expected to be the initial United States contribution?

Mr. Amery

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will prompt me if I forget all his questions—I am sorry, but I have already forgotten what his first question was.

Mr. Mulley

I asked, first, when the system would be available.

Mr. Amery

The project is under development. I should not like to forecast a definite date for when it will come into service. I think that the hon. Gentleman's second question was how it will fit into the ballistic missile early warning system. This project is quite distinct from the early warning system, but will complement it. The early warning system to be erected at Fylingdales is a radar system with a definite horizon. It is extremely precise and will enable us to track missile paths very accurately.

On the other hand, the MIDAS programme overlooks the whole world and will enable us to know of any satellite launched from any direction, which the early warning system at Fylingdales would not. The early warning system at Fylingdales will come into service considerably earlier than the MIDAS system, but the two will be very useful alongside one another. As I said in my statement, the MIDAS system will also give us considerably earlier warning than the Fylingdales system.

I think that the hon. Gentleman's next point concerned the cost. The financial provision is a very generous one on the part of the United States— that is to say, we are not involved in any costs until the station becomes operational—unless and until it becomes operational. Thus, the total figure of the cost would be, within the agreed limit, nothing like £10 million. It would be a very much smaller sum.

Mr. Mulley

What is the agreed limit? What is the point of the Minister mentioning £2 million to £3 million in his statement unless the Government can say that this is the agreed limit? Have we an additional commitment over and above that?

Mr. Amery

I quite understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I would rather not go into the details of the agreed limit. If I did so, I might prejudice the Government's position in contracts which are to be negotiated.

Mr. Mulley

It is rather unsatisfactory when the Secretary of State comes to the House with a prepared statement and himself mentions a figure as being the United Kingdom contribution if he cannot say whether it will be the total United Kingdom contribution. This is a large question. Although we shall obviously want an opportunity to study the matter further, the right hon. Gentleman should give a little more information. He also said that it would track all satellites. Is be satisfied that we shall not have any complications because of confusion between a peaceful scientific satellite and a missile?

Mr. Amery

On the first point. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should take me to task on it. I have said that the capital cost will be £2 million to £3 million. The amount we reimburse the United States will be very small but, because we have contracts to negotiate, I do not want to indicate precisely what amount it will be. I think that it is a very generous provision on the American side. They are not going to call for a contribution from us unless and until the station becomes effectively operational.

On the point of confusion, I do not think that there is any great risk here. In any case, we would not take any offensive action on any news we receive by this system. The most we would ever do would be to scramble our aircraft, just to make sure that they would not be subject to attack.

Mr. B. Harrison

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the information collected by MIDAS will be available as of right to the United Kingdom authorities?

Mr. Amery

Yes, simultaneously.

Mr. M. Foot

Since the right hon. Gentleman has said that this piece of mechanism will complement the ballistic missile early warning system, will he tell us how much time will be available for warning the authorities in this country of a rocket or a satellite set off by a potential enemy? How much time will this mechanism give us as compared with the previous so-called early warning system? Would the information come to this country, or is this apparatus intended merely to supply the United States with information of this nature?

Mr. Amery

As I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison), the information will be available simultaneously to us and to the United States. I stress the word "simultaneously". The warning time that we shall get would vary with the location of any rocket by which we were attacked, the trajectory of the rocket and various other circumstances peculiar to the mode of attack.

In all circumstances the station would give us, on our present calculations, a considerable margin over and above that which we would get from the Fylingdales system. [HON. MEMBERS: "How long?"] It would vary with the trajectory of the rocket and the place where it is sited. It could be several minutes. It could be a few minutes. It would vary with the point from which the attack was launched.

Sir C. Osborne

My right hon. Friend said that we are not to repay the £3 million capital until the station becomes operational. When will that be? Will it be in the coming financial year? Will the cost of maintaining the station add considerably to the Vote that his Department already has and, if so, by how much?

Mr. Amery

No. We are satisfied that it will not add very much to the Vote of the Department. I do not think that the figure for repayment will be as much as my hon. Friend seemed to gather from listening to my statement. I do not think that there will be any cost in the financial year ahead, but I cannot be quite sure.

Mr. Reynolds

In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley), the right hon. Gentleman said that we will not have to pay anything until the station becomes operational, and then he suddenly interjected the words "unless and until". What does he mean by "unless"? Is there some doubt about the whole project still? Is it still very much in the experimental stage, or is it a definite project which is to take place, in which case what does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "unless"?

Mr. Amery

I was only being cautious by nature. We are confident that this system will work. That is why I am making this statement to the House. I was merely underlining what seemed to be a very favourable provision in the agreement and one on which I think the United States has been generous. Until the system is operational there is no charge. I do not think that there is any danger that it would not prove operational, but if it did not prove operational there would equally be no charge.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. Once again, we cannot debate this now. There is no Question before the House.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether you could use your influence with Ministers. Two Ministers have just made two very contentious statements, involving the country in heavy cost as a result of prospective expenditure. Is it possible for you to use your influence with Ministers to ensure that they do not make two such statements on the same day, thus avoiding what some of us think are relevant questions in the national interest?

Mr. Speaker

Nobody is avoiding any relevant questions. I am only concerned with the time of the House. I think that everybody regrets it if there have to be two statements on one day, but I dare say that it is sometimes inevitable. I do not have any control over these Ministers.