HL Deb 01 December 1983 vol 445 cc858-65

7.20 p.m.

Lord Kennet rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether the RAF Regiment comes under British or US command when it is defending US bases in this country.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to ask a series of questions and to air a topic which is of course related to the question of the control of cruise missiles but is not closely related to it. It is another topic, and I hope that noble Lords who are present will realise that it is a separate and I believe rather new topic. The Rapier missile—I shall be corrected if I am wrong—is a ground-to-air missile. It is for shooting down aircraft, to attack aircraft, perhaps bombers, and is very good for putting around airports and missile bases for defending them against air attack. It is British made and it is I believe always conventionally armed. It is not a nuclear missile.

We have sold Rapier missiles to the United States Air Force. What a good thing! They are good missiles, and the United States Air Force is a friendly air force. But I understand that some of the missiles which we have sold—or will sell—to the United States Air Force are to be lent back, or leased back, or in some arrangement made back to the Royal Air Force Regiment which will be protecting United States bases in this country. I may have got this wrong, but I hope if I have the misunderstanding can be cleared up. My present understanding is that some of the British-made weapons have been bought by the United States Air Force, but that they will fetch up in the control, in the hands, of the Royal Air Force Regiment.

My first question is, is this right? If so, are there any other weapons, or will there be any other weapons, in the hands of British forces which are the property of the United States and which have been bought and paid for by the United States? My second question is this: does the presence of United States-owned weapons in the hands of this, or that, British unit anywhere affect the question of who commands that unit? The answer to this question will be relevant to further discussion about control of the cruise missiles themselves, because if the United States can give or lend us weapons which they have bought from us, how much the more easily could they give us weapons that they have made themselves.

I understand that the Royal Air Force Regiment is to be under the command of the United States when it is engaged on defending United States bases in the United Kingdom. I assume that that includes not only the United States aircraft bases which have been there for 30 years, mainly in East Anglia and the Midlands, but also the cruise missile bases.

My third question is a more general one. Can the noble Lord, when he comes to reply, tell us something about the general history of British forces coming under United States command in Britain since the nuclear age began? During the Second World War of course it was fairly common; but how much of it has happened since the nuclear age began? Can the noble Lord then describe the present situation? I am going to follow this up with more questions, which are simply a way of getting at a description of the present situation.

My fourth question is a more detailed one. Who will command the Royal Air Force Regiment on bases where United States aircraft are stationed in Britain?—that is, the United States' aircraft bases in Britain. My fifth question is who will command—Britain or the United States—the Royal Air Force Regiment when it is deployed for the protection of the bases where United States missiles are deployed?—that is, Greenham Common and, later, Molesworth.

My sixth question concerns the deployment of the cruise missiles from Greenham Common and Molesworth on exercises—or, of course, operationally if the balloon goes up—on to the roads, lanes, and fields of the country round about. Will the Royal Air Force Regiment go with the United States missiles on those deployments? If so will it take the Rapier missiles with it? In either case, will it, in the lanes, roads and fields of England, be under United States or British command?

My seventh question is a more sensational one. I am going to put these sensational questions not because I wish to raise sensation but because they go to the heart of what is national sovereignty, and thus to what is the right nature of an alliance between two sovereign nations which are friendly. If any British civilians invade a United States base so as to affect its operation and so as to render themselves liable to the opening of fire—to which the Secretary of State for Defence has said they would render themselves liable, and we on this Bench cannot dissent from that—by the forces defending United States bases (that is, the RAF Regiment) will the order to fire be given by a British officer or a United States officer?

I should like to know the answer to that question in each of the three cases that I have just outlined: in the case of United States aircraft bases; in the case of the United States missile bases; and in the case of the deployment of United States missiles from the latter. I know that this is sensational, but it worries people. We know that it worries people, all politicians know that; and in my belief the Government will clearly be serving the public interest if they give a clear and detailed answer.

My next question concerns another sensational matter; and that is suggestions which have been put forward by Government supporters in the House of Commons to the effect that if the United States went against the dual control agreement which exists between the United States and Britain about the firing of the missiles, if they went against the absolute veto which the Prime Minister has stated is in her hands on the firing of those missiles, and fired them, in that case the United States could be physically prevented from doing so by the RAF Regiment.

The Government answer in the House of Commons was not awfully loud or clear to this suggestion. This question also is quite freely discussed in the country. It is quite freely discussed in the corridors of power, and has been quite freely discussed for four years past since the dual track decision of December 1979. If such a thing were to have to happen—and if this country is a sovereign nation it might have to happen—would it be the RAF Regiment that would have to undertake that horrible duty, or would it be another unit of the British armed forces and, if so, which? If I understand correctly, the RAF Regiment would be under United States command so it could not be them.

I have asked many questions. I hope that when the noble Lord answers this Un starred Question he will give full and clear answers. If he cannot, may I urge him to give neither cloudy answers instead nor, as he often does, to ignore the questions. If he cannot give full and clear answers may I urge him to say in so many words that the answer is secret and that it would not be in the national interest that it should be divulged. If he says that we shall know where we stand, but if he is able to give clear answers public discussion will proceed on a better informed basis, which I submit is the only proper basis between two great democracies.

7.32 p.m.

Lord Bishopston

My Lords, we thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for raising this important and timely matter. It may be late at night and there may be few Members speaking, but this matter is of vital importance now that missiles have been deployed in the United Kingdom. We should all be quite clear about the control arrangements with no possible doubt or possibility of error, because our futures are at stake. One should stress the fact that this Question implies no criticism of the United States. but good relationships depend on knowing agreed procedures and ensuring compliance with them.

We have had many questions and many debates in your Lordships' House indicating the grave anxieties of noble Lords; whether they are unilateralists, multilateralists, or both. We are all worried about the control of weapons, not only in times of emergency but at all times, as the noble Lord has said. We have been told that the United Kingdom will provide RAF Regiment personnel and RAF police to the joint United States-United Kingdom defence force. From time to time we know it will be necessary to deploy it off base in time of tension and, indeed, in time of war. We have been assured many times that the arrangements which control the use in an emergency of the American bases and nuclear weapons systems are those provided for in the understanding reached between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States, laying down that use would be a matter for joint decision between the United Kingdom and United States Governments. We are entitled to ask, as Lord Kennet has asked, whether this also covers aspects of security which will apply in time of emergency—let us hope that that situation does not arise.

The shooting down of the Korean airliner and the United States invasion of Grenada were both situations which, if they had been anticipated in your Lordships' House, would have been met by the Government's assurances that they could never possibly happen. But they did and we have to ensure that similar situations do not arise in the future.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has raised some important questions about the control of the RAF Regiment and United Kingdom forces when defending United States bases in this country and also bases where United Kingdom and United States forces serve. The same concern might also cover the defence of bases such as Greenham and the mobile bases which could be anywhere in the United Kingdom, as the noble Lord said, and we want to know what control there is of them at all times. With all the assurances that the Prime Minister can give, with all the confidence she feels she radiates and the aura of infallibility with which she has been identified, we can be certain that the residents of even the most conservative town, village or hamlet will quake with fear when they become aware of the possible threat to their well being from United States personnel, which may arise unless clear assurances are given.

Surely even the special relationship between us does not allow for that possibility. It affects not only United Kingdom forces personnel but civilians in the vicinity of Greenham and many of the localities to which the noble Lord referred and where the forces may be stationed. If there is to be United States control of the RAF Regiment and United Kingdom forces, one wonders how the United States would react if United Kingdom forces on any United States territory were under the direct control of the British Prime Minister.

I will not repeat the Questions directed to the Government by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, but the House is grateful to him for having raised this important subject. We are entitled to the answers and the assurances which we need to ensure that this special relationship continues unabated.

7.35 p.m.

Lord Mayhew

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Kennet has done a service by putting these important questions clearly to the Government. It is a convention of the House that in reply to an Un starred Question the Government reply ends the debate. Normally this is satisfactory because one knows what the Govern- ment will reply. On this occasion I must confess that I am not altogether clear what reply the noble Lord is proposing to give, but on the major question which my noble friend asked—namely, whether in the event of a decision by the United States to fire the weapons, the RAF Regiment remains under the control of the British Government—I think the answer is clear and has been given. The Government, both in this House and in another place, have made it quite plain that they regard the presence of the RAF Regiment on the spot as a safeguard against the remote possibility of the United States wishing to fire these missiles without British Government consent. If the Minister were to reply that it is not in the public interest to disclose the arrangements he would be subject to serious criticism because this would directly conflict with the assurances given by Government Ministers that the RAF Regiment in those circumstances would remain under British command. I hope that the Minister will answer particularly fully and clearly on this point.

7.37 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne)

My Lords, your Lordships will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for raising this Question, and I welcome the opportunity to set the matter straight. Your Lordships may recall that in February 1981 the Government announced, among a number of other improvements to the air defence of the United Kingdom, the signature of a memorandum with the United States Government providing for the deployment of Rapier missile squadrons for the defence of the seven principal United States AirForce bases in the United Kingdom. Though these squadrons are dedicated to the defence of the United States bases, they are manned by Royal Air Force Regiment personnel. The command arrangements are precisely the same as for the squadrons deployed to protect Royal Air Force stations in the United Kingdom. I shall come to that in more detail later.

The Royal Air Force Regiment is an integral part of the Royal Air Force and is established to provide the local protection of key Royal Air Force operational bases and facilities. To fulfil these tasks light armoured squadrons of the regiment are equipped with armoured tracked vehicles for ground defence tasks, and air defence squadrons use the highly successful British Aerospace Rapier surface-to-air missile system.

The arrangements with the United States Air Force for the manning and deployment of Rapier in this country are an important example of co-operation between NATO allies. The Rapier systems which are now being deployed under the Memorandum of Understanding are wholly the property of the United States. But during negotiations for their procurement by the Americans, it became clear that neither the United States Air Force, nor the United States Army, would have the trained manpower available to operate them. Our allies thus found themselves in a peculiar difficulty. The United States Air Force has no direct equivalent of the Royal Air Force Regiment.

As matters stood, this important improvement in the air defence of the United Kingdom would have been frustrated, at least for a while, because of the manpower problem. I am glad to say that the deployment of Rapiers for this essential role was not frustrated because Her Majesty's Government found it possible to respond to the situation by providing the manpower which the Americans could not. We therefore undertook to provide and train Royal Air Force Regiment personnel to meet the need of the Americans. Not only that, but we were able to ensure that the United States Air Force Rapiers would be fully integrated into the United Kingdom air defence system, which is itself a part of the NATO air defence system covering Western Europe as a whole.

The agreement between the two sides enabled an important air defence enhancement to be achieved in the most effective manner possible, and allowed the costs to fall upon the party benefiting; namely, the United States Air Force. The costs borne by the Royal Air Force in providing training and manpower were offset by a reduction in the research and development levy for the Trident Programme, which your Lordships will recall was published in an exchange of letters in July 1980.

May I now say something about the Rapier system which the United States Air Force is buying. It is a wholly British system, manufactured by British Aerospace. It is a world leader in ultra-low level air defence, with a supersonic missile with such accuracy that the target can be brought down by a direct hit. It can be used with an optical sighting system, as was the case in the Falklands conflict, or with the Marconi blindfire radar tracker, as in the version of the system which is being supplied to the United States Air Force, and which is already in service with the RAF Regiment in the United Kingdom and Germany. It is lightweight and highly mobile, and is easily carried by a helicopter or a transport aeroplane. It is ideal both for airfield defence, and for the protection of mobile ground forces. The agreement with the United States was thus a unique endorsement of Rapier's qualities. The value of the deal is rather more than £140 million.

Let me now turn to the command arrangements which lie at the heart of the noble Lord's Unstarred Question. The Royal Air Force is totally responsible for the administration and discipline of these personnel. Those who operate the United States missiles are no different in this respect from those responsible for protecting the Royal Air Force itself. As far as operational command is concerned, this responsibility, in peace and war, falls to the Commander-in-Chief Royal Air Force Strike Command, acting in his NATO capacity as CINCUKAIR. He is responsible to the Supreme Allied Commander Europe for all air defence operations within the United Kingdom area and for the command of all NATO air defence forces in the United Kingdom. It is he who orders the deployment and state of readiness of all United Kingdom Rapier squadrons. If called upon to act, these units follow agreed NATO rules of engagement, common to all our air defence forces.

It has been suggested that these Royal Air Force Regiment forces are in some degree under the operational command of the United States, and that this offends against our sovereignty and territorial rights. I wish to reassure your Lordships that this is in no way the case. The Commander-in-Chief under whom they act is a British commander, and will always be so. The chain of command is both a British and a NATO command. There is no sense in which the wing commander in charge of the United States base protected by Rapiers could or would issue instructions which conflict with those of the Commander-in-Chief. The role of the United States wing commander in the scheme of things is exactly the same role as is assigned to a Royal Air Force station commander whose base is protected by a Rapier squadron. The wing commander's responsibilities are purely tactical. His function is to ensure effective local airspace management in the vicinity of his base; in other words, in simple language, to prevent his air defence forces from shooting down friendly aircraft. There, the United States commander's operational responsibility ends. He cannot independently order the missiles to fire. He must act in any operational situation according to the overall rules laid down by NATO and the specific instructions of the air defence commander.

May I now take up the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and others about the arrangement in connection with the cruise missiles and defence policies. The first point I must make is that the operational function of the Royal Air Force personnel employed in the defence force at RAF Greenham Common is entirely different from the function of those manning the Rapier squadrons. The Greenham Common personnel are not employed to defend the base. They are part of an integrated force specifically dedicated to protecting the sensitive elements of the cruise missile system from armed attack by terrorists and saboteurs in peacetime and by enemy forces in wartime. They are not responsible for operating the missiles themselves. Their command arrangements are dictated by their function. Administratively, they are under British command and, operationally, under joint command.

If I can amplify that point a little further, the integrated command enjoys a United States Air Force commander with a Royal Air Force deputy commander. I trust that this leaves no remaining doubt on the issue of the command arrangements, or suggestion that the highly advantageous arrangement made with the Americans in connection with the Rapier system in any way conflicts with British sovereignty. The command arrangements for these Rapier forces assigned to the United States Air Force are dictated by the envoronment in which the Rapier squadrons are placed and by the integrated NATO control of all our air defence forces.

I hope that I have said enough to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, on the main thrust of the Un starred Question that he was asking. I am conscious that I have not answered all the detailed questions that he has put to me, but I hope that he will agree that I should study the questions that he has put, because some of them were quite profound, and let him have considered answers by correspondence in due course.

Lord Kennet

My Lords, I agree with pleasure that the noble Lord should study them and answer later. He is right in saying that he did not cover the full ground. Can he confirm that what he said about the joint force being under a United States commander at the missile base would lead to the order to fire on British saboteurs or attackers being given by a American officer?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I think I said they were under joint command at the Greenham Common base and not under United States Air Force command. I hope that the noble Lord will allow me to amplify that in correspondence for it is not, in fact, as simple a matter as some people would have us believe. With regard to the Rapiers, as I have said, the fact is that the Royal Air Force Regiment squadrons in the United Kingdom employed to defend the American bases are under British command. We have agreed to provide these squadrons to overcome a particularly difficult problem which has emerged. It is a measure of the strength of the NATO Alliance and our own flexibility that we could respond to the difficulties that arose in the way that we did. The Rapier arrangement reflects nothing but credit on all those involved and I hope your Lordships will agree with that.

Lord Mayhew

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he confirm that, since the operational use of the RAF Regiment at the missile sites is subject to joint control, there is no sense in which one can say that the RAF Regiment could veto a decision by the United States to fire the missiles?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, the decision to fire the missile is a matter not for the RAF Regiment, not for the United States forces on the base, but for the President and the Prime Minister.

Lord Bishopston

My Lords, may I ask the Minister briefly whether he will send me a copy of the correspondence which he is to send to the noble Lord? I am sure he will confirm there is no possibility of any United Kingdom citizens being shot by US personnel at a time of a possible breach of security.

House adjourned at ten minutes before eight o'clock.