United States Bases (Hansard, 13 May 1986)

§ 1. Mr. Dubs
asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now publish a statement on the arrangements for the use of conventional weapons from United States bases in the United Kingdom.

§ 12. Mrs. Clwyd
asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will now publish a statement on the arrangements for the use of conventional weapons by the United States from United Kingdom bases.

§ The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Younger)
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated on 7 May: Under the Churchill-Truman arrangements, there are no circumstances in which American aircraft based in this country may be used without our consent in military operations planned by the United States."—[Official Report, 7 May 1986; Vol. 97, c. 132.]

§ Mr. Dubs
Is the Secretary of State aware that, despite his answer, the confidence of British people in consultations between ourselves and Washington has been severely shattered by the way in which our bases were used for the attack on Libya? Does he agree that the very least for which we can ask is more consultation in future, and, better still, no use of NATO bases for non-NATO purposes?

§ Mr. Younger
That is a somewhat surprising question, because, while there is plenty of room for controversy about all aspects of this matter, the one thing that is perfectly clear is that the consultation procedure is satisfactory and has worked extremely well.

§ Mrs. Clwyd
In view of the Secretary of State's answer and the Government's total subservience to the United States Government, will he tell us to what extent the arrangements involve the use of Britain as a strategic base for the Americans in the event of another attack in which the Americans are the principal belligerents?

§ Mr. Younger
The answer has been made clear many times. If there were to be any further request from the United States for any further such action, it would be an entirely new request and would have to be considered afresh by my right hon. Friend and myself.

§ Sir Antony Buck
Will my right hon. Friend ignore the remarks of Opposition Members and confirm that the arrangements were found perfectly satisfactory by preceding Governments—not only Conservative, but Labour?

§ Mr. Younger
My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely correct. Indeed, the original agreement was negotiated with the Americans by a Labour Government under Mr. Attlee.

§ Mr. Baldry
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the use of bases, such as Upper Heyford, will always be a decision for both Governments and that nothing has changed? Will he further confirm that that has been the position in the past and will be the position in future? Is that not the safeguard that has protected us for many years past and will do so for many years to come?

§ Mr. Younger
I can give my hon. Friend that absolute assurance. The arrangements have been perfectly satisfactory, and we have no intention of changing them.

§ Mr. Foulkes
Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the same arrangements apply for missiles fired from United States submarines sailing out of United Kingdom bases?

§ Mr. Younger
Yes, the same arrangements apply to all bases.

§ Mr. Beaumont-Dark
Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is more than a certain offensiveness about the suggestion that American forces—which, as a nation, by heart and resolve, are valiant allies—are somehow or other the enemies of our freedom? Without the Americans, what freedom would we have in the Western world?

§ Mr. Younger
My hon. Friend is correct in what he says. It is quite clear that the defence of this country depends entirly upon defending it in conjunction with our allies, and our principal ally in the NATO Alliance is the United States. It is our closest ally by a long way.

§ Mr. Denzil Davies
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the arrangements for the use of conventional weapons are no different from those for the use of chemical weapons? As the Government seem to be determined next week, or the week after, to allow binary chemical bombs to be established at Upper Heyford and Lakenheath, will he confirm that the rules regarding the use of those bombs will be no different from those regarding the bombs used to attack Libya?

§ Mr. Younger
I do not think that that arises, because there are no chemical weapons stored in the United Kingdom and we have no intention of agreeing to chemical weapons being stored here by the United States. Obviously, if it were to ask us to do so, the matter would have to be considered.