§ 3.5 p.m.
§ Lord KennetMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the existing "Rules of Engagement" of United States servicemen in this country, and of British troops guarding United States bases in this country have been submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown, and if so whether they are satisfied that these "rules" conform with United Kingdom law.
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, the Government are satisfied that the instructions which govern the use of force by British servicemen are fully compatible with the law of this country. We are satisfied, too, that the competent United States authorities are well aware of our law and that United States servicemen in the United Kingdom will at all times respect it.
§ Lord KennetMy Lords, do the Government have any reason for not submitting them to the Law Officers of the Crown?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, the noble Lord reads too much into my Answer. I did not say that.
§ Lord BishopstonMy Lords, does the Minister realise that it is claimed that the American congressional record suggests that there is more than significant drug-taking among American servicemen generally? Is he not aware that recently six American servicemen were sent home? While one recognises that drug-taking is not confined to one nationality, in view of the fact that Greenham Common and other bases throughout the country are under American control, is the Minister satisfied with the safeguards in such a situation?
§ Lord TrefgarneYes, my Lords.
§ Lord Boyd-CarpenterMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that most people in this country welcome the presence here of American troops, with the commitment that that involves to mutual action in the defence of peace and world security? Is he aware also that many of us resent the imputations which some people in this country see fit to make against these soldiers, who are serving their country, and the people of the world, overseas and far from home?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, I welcome the intervention of my noble friend, and I precisely share his sentiments.
§ Lord BrockwayMy Lords, may I ask the Minister whether it is the case that at Greenham Common and similar bases the forces are under an American command; and whether that command is not superior to any command over the British forces?
§ Lord TrefgarneNo, my Lords. The forces at Greenham Common are under joint command.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that, having served with the American forces in the last war, I am none too happy about the situation from personal experience? Is he further aware that his answer to my noble friend on the Front Bench about drug-taking was most inadequate? Will he reconsider his reply and answer more fully?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, the noble Lord said that he was not happy to have served with the United States forces. How happy they were to serve with him, I am not clear.
Lord Shin wellMy Lords, can the Minister say whether during the last war, when the United States decided to enter the conflict, there was any question of treaties, of law, of rules or of debates in Parliament, either in your Lordships' House or in another place, in order to determine whether we were right or wrong?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, I was nine months old on 7th December 1941, so my recollection is not too clear.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords, I must seek leave to correct what was said by the noble Lord the Minister just now. My relationships with the United States forces with whom I had the honour to serve were of the best. I did, however, have some grave doubts from time to time about the efficiency of their command, which is a different matter altogether.
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, I am happy to hear what the noble Lord says: but, as I mentioned, I have not heard their views of the noble Lord.
§ Lord BishopstonMy Lords, does the Minister not consider that his reply to my supplementary question was not only brief but dismissive? Is he really unaware of the concern there must be among many people that some of those who will take responsibilities which are a matter of life and death for millions, perhaps, could be in a situation in which they are not really able to use the faculties that we would expect them to have?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, I believe that the noble Lord himself answered his supplementary question when he pointed out that there will always be a few people in any body of men who occasionally break the law.
§ Lord KennetMy Lords, can the noble Lord reconcile his answer, which he has given before today, that the American missiles at Greenham Common are 353 under joint command, with another answer which he has given the House, that they are under an American commander and a British deputy commander?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, I recall that your Lordships had an Unstarred Question on this matter asked, if my memory serves me, by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, when I answered that question at considerable length. It may not be appropriate for me to repeat that answer now.
§ Lord BeswickMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a hypothetical question? One never knows, it may come to pass. In a moment of crisis, if there is an American order to American personnel for these weapons at Greenham Common to be fired, would they not be under an obligation to obey the order?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, that order would not be given unless the British Prime Minister had agreed.
§ Lord Elwyn-JonesMy Lords, would there not be some advantage, in view of the disquiet about this, in discussions taking place with the American military authorities? After all, the soldiers at Greenham Common who are guarding the premises, and apparently the Americans as well, have been given the power to fire.
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, the question of the ultimate defence of the nuclear facilities at Greenham Common has been a matter for very considerable comment already. But I must emphasise that the arrangements for firing to which the noble Lord refers are of course in the very last resort.