asked Her Majesty’s Government:

How they intend to inform Parliament about the implications for British involvement in the United States missile defence system of recent United States–Russian negotiations on the system and its future deployment.

My Lords, first, I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in offering sincere condolences to the family and friends of two service personnel who died in Iraq on Tuesday when the RAF Puma helicopter in which they were travelling crashed near Baghdad. Our thoughts go out to those families.

The bilateral discussions between Russia and the United States over co-operation on ballistic missile defence are not for the UK to comment on, although we welcome the progress being made. Parliament will be informed of any outcome of the discussions that affects the United Kingdom.

My Lords, we on these Benches share in the condolences expressed for the two soldiers killed in the helicopter crash. I should declare a geographical interest in that Menwith Hill is an American enclave on British soil and is very close to Saltaire. I pass by it frequently.

In the past two weeks I had an interesting discussion with a visiting Czech Minister about the Czech Government’s regular involvement in, or at least briefing by the Americans on, the bilateral negotiations. Similarly, I have read about the Polish Government’s comments on them. Are the British Government not being well informed about these negotiations, or are they being informed but are not telling the British Parliament? In February, the last Prime Minister promised the then Leader of my party that the Government would “regularly keep Parliament informed” of developments in missile defence. On 25 July, just as we broke for the summer, they issued a Written Statement. The Government are not keeping Parliament informed about this important issue.

My Lords, I reject the suggestion that Parliament is not being kept informed, or indeed that we have reneged on any of the promises given by the then Prime Minister in February. The siting of ballistic missile defence assets in Poland or the Czech Republic is a bilateral issue between the United States with each of those two nations. Obviously they will have internal discussions themselves about the way forward, but the decisions on that are not for the United Kingdom. As I said, if there were issues which affected this country, we would of course inform the House. Further, on keeping the House informed, there have been Parliamentary Questions and Written Statements. Although the noble Lord quotes the former Prime Minister, he should remember what he actually said about holding discussions in the House:

“When we have a proposition to put, we will come back”.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/2/07; col. 289.].

My Lords, I find the Minister’s reply quite puzzling, because Menwith Hill is on British soil and is the result of a direct discussion between the United States Government and that of the United Kingdom. It is without any doubt part of the missile defence system of which the proposed installations in Poland and the Czech Republic are further parts. The Minister will recognise that the issue of nuclear proliferation is crucial to the United Kingdom and the world, and that it is deeply affected by Russia’s willingness to co-operate. That co-operation is now dwindling in the face of what it regards as a dangerous level of encirclement. Will the Minister consider whether there should not be some discussion in Parliament, the last debate on this crucial issue having been held four years ago?

My Lords, nothing of substance has changed in the intervening period and Ministers have kept the House informed in terms of developments at both Fylingdales and Menwith Hill. However, the decisions debated in 2003 did envisage those future developments. I reiterate the fact that Ministers will keep the House informed. Debates are not a matter for Ministers, but for the usual channels as well as other parties. I am sure that there will be debates in the future, but the Government’s commitment is for when there is a proposition to be put to Parliament.

My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, I find the Minister’s attitude puzzling. The Russians are clearly extremely agitated by all this. They are threatening to abrogate treaties, the general tension is rising and there is talk of a return to Cold War attitudes. None of this is in Britain’s interest. Even if we do not have a direct, physical and specific involvement in this issue, is not this a time when our diplomacy should be deployed in skilful ways? Perhaps we should, to coin a phrase, be a little less joined hip to hip with Washington’s strategy.

My Lords, nothing I have said detracts from the suggestion that diplomacy should be employed in normal ways. That is what is happening. There have been some worrying developments within Russia and some of what has been said about the conventional forces in Europe treaty is causing concern. Those matters are discussed both between the United States and the Russians and in the NATO context, and Britain will continue to play its part in diplomacy on issues such as that.

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the missile defence issue is being dealt with bilaterally—US to Czech, US to Poles, US to Britain and US to Russia—and not as a very important multilateral issue for NATO and in East-West relations? Would it not be more appropriate for this to be properly handled as a multilateral security matter?

My Lord, NATO has a role to play and plays it. Holding bilateral discussions on certain aspects does not exclude that.