Notes of Meeting re RAF Fylingdales with Rt Hon Geoff Hoon MP, Secretary of State for Defence

In Attendance:
Jovita Avellana
Michael Bartlett (Society of Friends)
Geoffrey Belbin (North York Moors Association)
Cllr. Ian Bryan (Whitby Borough Council)
Mrs Chadwick
John Chadwick
Dilys Cluer (Scarborough Green Party)
Mike Dawson
Frank Doughty
Chris Dove
Jackie Fearnley (Fylingdales Action Network)
A H Grant
Mary Heron
Diana Jeuda (Chair, Scarborough & Whitby Labour Party)
Liz Johnson
Peter Lyth
Laurie McAuley,
David Mason
Cllr. Dalton Peake, (Mayor of Whitby Town Council)
Magda Phillips
Fif Robinson
Mrs Shone
A R Thomson
Peter Woods
Mr Keith Allen (Scarborough Borough Council)
Cllr. Helen Schroeder, Cllr. Herbert Tindall, Mr Andy Wilson, Mrs Val Dilcock (all representing North York Moors National Park)
Mr Harold Mosley (Ryedale Borough Council)
Cllr. Murray Naylor (North Yorkshire County Council)
Mr Paul Taylor and Mr Nick Witney (officials from the Ministry of Defence)
Rt Hon Geoff Hoon MP, Secretary of State for Defence
Lawrie Quinn MP (Scarborough & Whitby Constituency)

Welcome by Lawrie Quinn MP:

The meeting had been called by Lawrie Quinn in response to the questions raised by constituents on this subject over the past three and a half years.

Lawrie Quinn explained that the meeting was his initiative, not that of the MOD. He had received numerous representations from constituents on the future of the base. This was the start of a consultation, the record of which would be submitted to the Parliamentary Defence Select Committee, and also to representatives of Local Government and the Planning Authorities so as to ensure that the viewpoints of the meeting were placed before Parliament.

Opening Remarks by Rt Hon Geoff Hoon MP, Secretary of State for Defence:

Geoff Hoon said he was delighted to have the opportunity of meeting with and considering the views of local people about Fylingdales and its role. He was joined at the table by Nick Witney, Director General for International Security Policy and Paul Taylor, Director of Strategy Technologies. The United States had requested permission before Christmas for an upgrading of Fylingdales for testing missile defence . This request was being given serious consideration by the Government and there was serious debate amongst the public and in Parliament. Opportunities were being made for local people to express their views.

Background to the request from the United States: This was from a wider defence perspective. He would first speak on what had been requested and what it meant for Fylingdales. Clearly, everyone was much more aware these days of the spread of ballistic missiles. The present proposal on missile defence was not "Star Wars", although some people were tempted to use that expression as shorthand. "Star Wars" was in the '80s under President Reagan and was meant to deal with the Soviet Union's capability to launch weapons. What was being requested was a much more modest programme which was designed for a limited threat from , states of concern, e.g., North Korea and Iraq. Because of the structure and way of making decisions of such countries, a defensive system could complement traditional means of deterrence if they were minded to use ballistic missiles . The US request aims to limit the threat that they may make. It is part of a wider policy to ensure that as few countries as possible should acquire or develop systems for themselves. There was no immediate threat to the United Kingdom itself from ballistic missiles. It was not possible to be complacent, however, because if we wanted to have the protection of a defensive system, then getting such a system in place took time and, in that time, the United Kingdom might come under threat, e.g., from Iraq.

1. The request was for a software upgrade - an improvement in the way in which Fylingdales would operate internally. It would not entail construction of a new building or the installation of an X-band radar. Essentially, it was looking at something that would enhance the building of Fylingdales to do a particular job, but it would not fundamentally change what Fylingdales already did. There was no significant change of structure and no additional use of land.
2. Although it would be a different operating pattern, the power and the frequency output would not change. It would be doing pretty much the same job as it already did - to detect the approach of a ballistic missile and to track other missiles, satellites and other equipment in orbit round the earth. The power and the frequency were many times lower than the safety authorities y allows and they would continue to be the same.
3. One of the issues raised was concerned that this upgrade might make Fylingdales a possible target of attack. This would be taken very carefully into consideration. It would not be a threat of the former USSR, but one from a country like Iraq which might, at worst, have a handful of missiles, none of which were capable of being accurately targeted. Therefore, Mr Hoon did not believe that this made Fylingdales at greater risk than it had been.

Chris Dove: Did the Secretary of State think this was going to make the world safer? It should not be doubted that this was really a defence issue because missile defence, as Mr Dove understood it, was part of US full spectrum domination. This was vision 20:20. If it did not make the world safer, should we not be doing it?

Geoff Hoon suggested that the meeting went back to the beginning. Why should anyone spend the money the US spends, and intends to spend, if it does not make the world safer? Why else do it? The answer relates to countries like Iraq and North Korea which are not functioning democracies or do not consider the safety of their country and population. For example, Saddam Hussein attacked his own people with weapons of mass destruction. Any nation should consider very carefully before launching a ballistic missile against the UK because it could expect a pretty robust response. Therefore, such countries are quite capable of being deterred in that way. They are a threat if, notwithstanding the harm to their own people, they will use missiles. Iraq has used missiles in the past and is in that category. If we do not consider the offer and invitation from the United States and in 10 years time, Iraq and North Korea have a ballistic missile which they are going to launch, will not people be saying, "Why did you not protect us against it?" and particularly if the United States already has protection. Mr Hoon said he had to take this most seriously. Will such a system protect the people of the United Kingdom? Will it make them safer? Is there a risk out there from which we need protection? If missile defence will do this, it would be irresponsible of the Government not to take that opportunity. It is a responsibility of the Government.

Chris Dove: His question on 20:20 vision had not been answered.

Geoff Hoon: Decisions will be taken in the interests of the United Kingdom, not the United States.

Jackie Fearnley: Geoff Hoon could also end up being blamed for making the people of the Fylingdales area more of a target. This was a very serious decision he was having to make. Becoming more connected to US policy means we will have less control. That is what is worrying people. On a local level, the other concern is that, although Geoff Hoon said safety was not an issue, there is a similar place in Cape Cod and it has had a much higher incidence of brain tumours and leukaemia since the system was put in place. Who is going to take responsibility for doing some research into what is happening at the moment? All known indicators are not necessarily right. This is a complex subject. It must be done before a decision is made, when it will be too late. This is important and it is a high price to pay.

Geoff Hoon: Preliminary comments: Our connection with US foreign policy. We have been members of the same alliance for more than 50 years. It cannot be seen that our relationship is going to change. He recognised that some say we should not have such a close relationship. He values that relationship and wants it to continue.

Safety: The car is the most dangerous thing likely to cause death in the next week or the next year. Safety is a relative concept. People would never do anything if the level of safety being described was applied. He could assure the meeting that the upgrading will make little change to the emissions and they are below requirements. They will not do something damaging to people's lives.

Diana Jeuda: The Constituency Labour Party had not formally discussed this. In discussions with Party Members, however, there was a lot of concern about the development of Fylingdales. She gave some major points:

1. Chris Dove's initial point: Missile defence is quite an old fashioned way of encouraging peace in the world. There is a second way, which is to look for peace by increasing ways of protection and improving the world to defer conflict. Party Members preferred the second way.
2. Re connections with the US in the last 50 years, there are different pressures in the world now. The Policy Forum prefers going down the roads of protection and improvement rather than those which have other motives than to do with world peace.
3. Fylingdales makes this area a target.
4. Why do we need Fylingdales? Because Iraq is hardly likely to fire something in our direction and in this area.
5. Re Geoff Hoon's comments on safety and how participants travelled to Goathland: They came by car because it had been chosen that the meeting be at Goathland and not in a town where public transport could be used.
6. This was a defence policy which was less on weapons of destruction and more to do with economic acquisition of the world.

Geoffrey Belbin: The use of the National Park for such activities was quite beyond discussion. It seemed to the North York Moors Association that, since the Secretary of State was going to spend lots of money on this, it was time to re-locate. The Association's concerns were about the security of the local communities. The argument goes (Paragraph 81 of the Discussion Paper) that the threat is not increased because we have lived with the threat of nuclear attack since the 1950s. He personally believed the dynamics would change because the protection before was mutually destructive. This was what kept the peace for 30 years. The situation now is that the people against whom this screen is being erected are not of a mind to be concerned about retaliatory attack, for some it was more about thinking of going to Paradise. Then, any collaboration with terrorist colleagues was to put the defensive system out of action and so that there could then be an attack. This placed Fylingdales under more possibility of attack and thus it represented a danger to the surrounding communities.

Geoff Hoon: The first part of Mr Belbin's questions had given an eloquent defence of missile defence. Where the issue arises in relation to terrorism, the Government must make sure that the security of the base was of the highest standard against the threats that might be anticipated and this was the case. Security of the base had been significantly enhanced in the last 12 months and if there was a threat, the Government would go on providing the level of resources required. Mr Hoon, however, believed that the US request would not change the unlikely threat of an attack on Fylingdales and that the enhanced security arrangements should be sufficient to defend the base. .

Re the use of the National Park: This was a good location for what Fylingdales does. It was chosen precisely for reasons of its geography and these reasons will not change as a result of any enhancement if the Government agrees to the US request, because the base provides the ability for the United Kingdom to track missiles attacking the United Kingdom. The country needed this. It was the case all through the heights and depths of the Cold War. Given the potential that countries then had thousands of nuclear warheads capable of being targeted at individuals and big cities, the United Kingdom lived through that period without there being undue concern to the local population, Geoff Hoon could not see how in comparing that situation, which had fortunately been resolved, with now, the United Kingdom had any greater reason for concern if the Government decided to agree to the US request. Frankly, in any event if the Government were to make the gesture, Fylingdales would not be attacked.

Liz Johnson: Ms Johnson represented Fylingdales Action Network.

Question to Geoff Hoon: The document said that it was too early to estimate costs. Should we not have some idea before we committed ourselves?

Question to Lawrie Quinn: This is an issue of very real concern to very many people in this Constituency. This meeting had been by invitation only. A lot of people did not know it was happening. Presumably, there are going to be other opportunities for other people to air their views?

Lawrie Quinn: 100 invitations had been sent out. Obviously, because from the point of view of the planning, this had been over the Christmas and New Year holidays, 6th January had been the only window of opportunity in these circumstances. It had been the New Year before he had known for certain that Geoff Hoon would be coming. People can all contact Lawrie Quinn and there are his surgeries. The Select Committee was due to visit during January and it was his intention to write with details of what was discussed at this meeting and to propose a facility be made open for another visit to Fylingdales. His job was to be a conduit, to open debate and to put on record in Parliament exactly what was being represented to him by those present and other constituents who get in touch with him. He was sorry that this meeting had had to be rushed together and he thanked the meeting for helping him to do what he sees as his job. The Press put the case forward as well.

Geoff Hoon advised the meeting that Lawrie Quinn had raised these issues over many years now and that he puts his constituents' views forward very forcefully. This meeting had been as a result of Lawrie Quinn coming to his office and making it clear that Geoff Hoon had to listen carefully.

Geoff Hoon said that, if it was agreed to upgrade the software facilities at Fylingdales to allow the radar to be used as part of a development programme, that would help the United States determine what kind of defence system they might ultimately employ. The UK Government could not go beyond what was said in the public discussion document in what it was committing itself to. The Government would be looking at what the United States was putting forward and would not be committing us to anything specific at all at the moment.

Michael Bartlett: His concern and the concern of Quakers was that the Government was driving down a wrong road at rather high speed, blindfold, and the Government is not listening to people nationally or in the Parliamentary Labour Party, who are deeply worried about this. Many people will know that security is not lax on windows or alarms or guns. It is about relationships and the good kind of relationships, so that crime is not likely to happen. Do we actually need missile defence? What is our real security? This kind of incremental creep can lead to the most dangerous policy changes. The United States is making changes. Canada does not want missile defence. Senior US staff consider it unnecessary and they do not want it. Why is this really necessary? Are Iraq or Korea really a threat? If we did not have a policy based on aggressive weapons, would we be a target in any case?

1. What opportunities are there going to be to consult nationally on this?
2. Is the Parliamentary Party going to be voting on this?
3. Are local people going to have a voice in this decision?

Michael Bartlett: He shared Geoff Hoon's concern.

Geoff Hoon: He agreed entirely that in the kind of community around Fylingdales it was about neighbours and relationships. Unfortunately, even in this kind of community there are those who oppose those relationships, who are not good neighbours, who take advantage. How do we deal with these people? When he had discussed this previously with Michael Bartlett at a meeting, they probably did disagree, but we had to say that we will not tolerate people like Saddam Hussein attacking law abiding, decent people. Ultimate justification: It is about making sure we are protected against such offence. This seems to be perfectly consistent with the philosophical views of Michael Bartlett and his colleagues.

The decision will be taken by the democratically elected Government and it will be taken in the usual way in which decisions are taken in the United Kingdom in our democracy. One of the virtues of our system is that it can be changed. If anyone is not happy with that system, you are free to change it. These are the luxuries not available to people of Iraq or North Korea.

Planning is a local decision and the Government will give any information that it is required to give.

A decision on the US request will be made when the time is right.

Lawrie Quinn: He would circulate details of the consultation and everyone attending the meeting would get a copy and if anyone had not had the chance to say something, he welcomed them to do so. He then requested questions from three further people:

Dilys Cluer: She wondered:

1. What could possibly motivate a rogue state to launch a ballistic missile against the United Kingdom or the United States? Normally, it is to gain territory or to protect themselves. The only way they are protecting themselves is if they are being threatened. Are we not putting ourselves at risk for the sake of the United States?
2. The West is inflicting economic terrorism on terrorists. We would be seen as more of a threat if we have a defence shield which enables the US to threaten other countries with impunity. It would be hindering diplomacy and conflict prevention.

Mrs Shone: Two things became apparent during the discussion:

1. As a tax payer, she thought most would not, for instance, buy a house without knowing the price. But Geoff Hoon did not seem to be able to give the meeting any costs for the project at all. This was very disturbing and she hoped that the costs would be published before any decision was taken.
2. There would, therefore, then be a published, full debate in Parliament, not a discussion? Was this likely?

Moscow Treaty: As a result of the United States having the confidence of being able to deploy missile defence, it had agreed a significant reduction in its offensive nuclear weapons and the same was the case for Russia. United Nation members had campaigned for this and had not succeeded. Now it had happened. If the country has what is essentially a passive system, one which does not offend anyone at all, this is a good thing.

Decisions are worked out in the best interests of the United Kingdom, e.g., the Prime Minister had disagreed with the US about steel tariffs, the Foreign Secretary over the International Criminal Court. The Government does say if it does not agree with a United States decision.

What is the Government committing itself to? At the moment the costs of Fylingdales are shared by the United States and the United Kingdom. This will not change if there is an upgrade. The Government is not giving a commitment to anything over than making Fylingdales more effective at the job it already does. In terms of amount of time spent in doing the job of tracking incoming missiles, Fylingdales will do what it has always done - protect the United Kingdom.

Lawrie Quinn: Lawrie Quinn sought three further questions from the floor.

Peter Lyth: Missile defence is no threat because it is defensive. Will the other side not make more decoys? If there are a lot coming through, it is quite likely that the defence system will miss a few. If it is more offensive on the other side, the country will be no better off. This questions the technological feasibility of missile defence.

Magda Phillips: Magda Phillips commented on the nature of the meeting. It was to have been a consultation, but the format had not been consultation, but a meeting with a very articulate person with people who were not able to come back with an answer. The nature had been that there should be time keeping. Geoff Hoon had had a lot to say and a lot of people there had not been able to speak. There had been smooth sounding sentences and some incredibly naïve viewpoints. This was an incredibly important subject and should not be pushed aside in this way.

Her main point, however was: Given that a lot of people think that the system is like trading a bullet with another bullet, a lot of scientists think that it is virtually impossible to achieve with the foreseeable technology. It would appear that the main point of this massive spend is vision 20:20. Geoff Hoon almost seemed to brush it aside as if it was something in the future and we are talking about missile defence. The United States have specifically said they wish to dominate space and keep an eye on earth. This should be taken on board today, and not just missile defence. What did Geoff Hoon and the other two gentlemen (Nick Whitney and Paul Taylor) think about vision 20:20?

Lawrie Quinn: This meeting was about him (Lawrie Quinn) doing his job in Parliament. The reason for Geoff Hoon being at the meeting was because Geoff Hoon knew more than he did on this subject.

A R Thomson: He lived in Goathland and his house looks out on to Fylingdales. He was very concerned that Geoff Hoon could stand up at the meeting and say it is inviolate. It is not. It can be blown to pieces and, for a fee, Mr Thomson would tell Geoff Hoon how to do it. It would require a nuclear weapon to do it. Geoff Hoon could push this aside but it was about someone shipping it in and doing the dirty as on 11 September. Mr Thomson was concerned when there was a dirty bomb outside his window.

Peter Woods: Mr Woods spoke wearing an environment hat. Geoff Hoon had mentioned that Fylingdales was here because it was the best place. Fylingdales was, in fact, the third best site. Since the document more or less said it was not the best place and because of the amount of money, a better site is punitive in terms of American money. Why did Geoff Hoon want to keep the site in the North York Moors National Park?

Geoff Hoon: Peter Lyth was challenging the idea that this was defensive. Geoff Hoon could not see how it could be seen otherwise. As Russia had agreed to reduce its stockpile, this was significant progress.

Magda Phillips had spoken on the technological feasibility. He did not really believe any of those present could sit there and say it would be 100% successful tomorrow or 100% a failure. The whole point of the question from the United States is to develop a system that gives greater confidence of success. It is not dealing with hundreds of missiles but those countries having a handful which might target one of those missiles at the United Kingdom. Could anyone honestly say that the United Kingdom would not demand that the Government takes steps about such a threat? It was the same for the terrorist points. The truth was that there was such a threat out there that we have to guard against it, but that did not mean we have to turn our backs against all the other threats in this modern world. That was the implication of the question. Certainly the Government would do what it can to protect the base against attack. We were a country together trying to best improve the condition of our people and protect them. Not everyone was going to agree with every decision the Government takes. Sometimes such decisions have to be accepted in a democratic country.

On Peter Wood's final point, Geoff Hoon would read up on the history of Fylingdales. Again, what was Mr Woods really saying? Fylingdales should be put somewhere else, not in our own backyard. The same issue would arise wherever else Fylingdales were sited. Fylingdales has been protecting this country throughout its history and will carry on protecting this country. Certainly it could be built somewhere else, but there were not that many places where it could be built to do the kind of job it does. It was overwhelmingly important to protect people here and that was what was paramount as far as the Minister was concerned.

Lawrie Quinn: Lawrie Quinn said that the debate today was not concluded until it was finished with in terms of Parliament. If anyone had further thoughts, please write to him. Everyone would receive a copy of this consultation and he would welcome any feedback from those present.

He thanked all the local organisations for the work they did in the local community. The Parliamentary Labour Party would be interest to hear Michael Bartlett's comments and of what had been discussed this morning.

Lawrie Quinn thanked everyone for helping him to do his job representing the people of Scarborough and Whitby. Lawrie Quinn then formally closed the meeting.