Cruise Missiles (Hansard, 17 January 1984)

§ 14. Mr. Cartwright
asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he anticipates further deployment of cruise missiles at Greenham common.

§ Mr. Heseltine
NATO deployments of cruise and Pershing II missiles are due to be completed over a five-year period. The programme for the deployment of 96 ground-launched cruise missiles at Greenham common will be completed well within that period, but I am not prepared to discuss specific details of further deliveries. As we have made clear, NATO's plans can be halted, modified or revised if results in negotiations in Geneva warrant it.

§ Mr. Cartwright
Now that NATO has demonstrated its resolve by making the initial deployment of cruise and Pershings, will Her Majesty's Government press strongly for a limited, deliberate suspension of further deployments to encourage the Soviets to return to meaningful negotiations in Geneva?

§ Mr. Heseltine
No, we would not be prepared to do that. What we would do, which I think achieves the purpose that the hon. Gentleman has in mind, would be to make it clear to the Soviet Union that any weapon systems that have been already deployed can be removed if the Soviet Union will reach meaningful arms control arrangements with us.

§ Mr. Nicholls
If my right hon. Friend accepts that what we have heard from the Labour Benches today shows, as always, how unfitted they are to be entrusted with the 157 defence of the realm, what does he make of the fact that, while the alliance still has pretensions of grandeur about Government, during the past 48 hours we have seen that the position of the SDP on Polaris and the deployment of cruise is at variance with that of its Liberal partners? Does he think that that will appeal to the electorate and show that the alliance is fitted for office?

§ Mr. Heseltine
I suppose that if one has two policies, they could, arguably, be better than one, if the one is no good.

§ 15. Mr. Hal Miller
asked the Secretary of State for Defence if the initial programme of installation of cruise missiles in the United Kingdom has now been completed.

§ Mr. Heseltine
The first ground-launched cruise missiles at RAF Greenham common became operational at the end of 1983, in accordance with NATO's December 1979 decision.

§ Mr. Miller
While congratulating my right hon. Friend on the successful completion of that much-needed initial programme, may I ask what is happening on the ground now in the Soviet Union since the breakdown of the talks? Has there been any further deployment of SS20s in eastern Europe?

§ Mr. Heseltine
All the indications and information available to us show that the Soviet Union is continuing with the arms build-up in all categories of weapons systems, including the SS20s, which has characterised its recent defence policy.

§ Mr. Willie W. Hamilton
As cruise missiles are increasingly deployed, will there not be an increased risk of confrontation between American military personnel and British civilians? In such circumstances, will not those American personnel come under the purview and discipline of the American military? All the evidence of recent years shows that the penalties imposed in such circumstances by the American military authorities are derisory. Will the Secretary of State review the operation of the Visiting Forces Act in the light of the new ball game?

§ Mr. Heseltine
The hon. Gentleman raises a serious question. We have considered the Visiting Forces Act to see whether the satisfaction expressed in it by the previous Labour Government justifies our continued confidence. In the main, it certainly does. I would accept the significance of the hon. Gentleman's point of view to this extent—the Government have a clear mandate for the deployment of the cruise weapon system. It is necessary for us to take the appropriate steps to carry out that mandate. There is no way in which we shall seek, or encourage, the frustration of that mandate by people who were unable to prevent the Government's election.

§ Mr. Denzil Davies
Will the Secretary of State clarify the confusion created by his Minister of State and confirm that if an American soldier engaged in security duties at Greenham common commits a prima facie criminal act he is subject in the first place not to English law but American military law? Will he confirm that that is the position?

§ Mr. Heseltine
My hon. Friend answered the question perfectly accurately. Visiting forces are governed in this country by the Visiting Forces Act 1952. In one way or the other, anyone found guilty of a crime is covered by the law of the land, with the option of the process of law being 158 pursued either in the country itself or in the home country of the forces themselves. That position was set out clearly in the recent debate to which my hon. Friend drew attention, and that is the position which was found be perfectly satisfactory by the previous Labour Government.

§ Mr. Willie W. Hamilton
No.

§ Mr. Boyes
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not convinced that the Secretary of State for Defence gave the House a correct interpretation of the Visiting Forces Act 1952. Might I ask the Home Secretary to read carefully what the Secretary of State for Defence said, and if what he said is not correct to publish a correction in the Official Report?

§ Mr. Speaker
What the hon. Gentleman has said will have been heard.