I am grateful for this opportunity to raise in a debate a matter that is confusing and angering many of my constituents, and has confused and angered them for many months—that is, why the Government, in the shape of the Department of Transport, are providing the site for those women who describe themselves as "peace women" and who first came to Greenham common in 1981. They came to stage a protest against the deployment of cruise missiles at RAF Greenham common, although that deployment had been agreed by NATO and accepted by Her Majesty's Government in 1980.

In a statement to the House, the then Secretary of State for Defence said that Greenham common would be "the main operating base" for the cruise missiles in the United Kingdom and would: house six flights of cruise missiles … It is planned that the first units will deploy at Greenham Common in 1983.The factors affecting the decision stemmed from the prime operational need to bring the first missiles into service as soon as possible. The choice had therefore to concentrate on establishments already in defence occupation which had sufficient space available and as many as possible of the basic facilities, in particular, adequate accommodation, road communications, and access to training areas and suitable dispersal areas … it will be necessary from time to time to practise the deployment of the launcher and its support vehicles to dispersed sites away from the base. These exercises will be along preplanned routes and will take place after consultation with the local authorities concerned.No live missiles, or warheads, will be carried on exercises at any time … As part of the security arrangements we shall be contributing 220 British personnel towards the guard forces for the bases and dispersal deployments …I am notifying the local authorities concerned about the deployment, and their views on the environmental and social aspects of the arrival of the units"— Cruise missiles— will be taken into account to the fullest possible extent." —[Official Report, 17 June 1980; Vol. 986, c. 1342–43.] I wish to consider to what extent the then Secretary of State's statements have been implemented as they relate to the responsibilities of the Department of Transport. He spoke of road communications and of considering the views of the local authority on the environmental and social aspects of the coming of cruise missiles.

First, I wish to deal with the arrival of the women in 1981. When they arrived they pitched their tents on Greenham common in flagrant disregard of the byelaws administered by Newbury district council on behalf of all those who wish to enjoy the amenities of the common. Initially, they chose for their site land outside the main gates of the base and to one side of the access road. There they made their camp and proclaimed themselves pledged to resist the deployment of cruise missiles at RAF Greenham common. They have been there ever since. They now rejoice in the name of the Greenham peace women with their residence the Greenham peace camp. From what we know of their views, they are opposed to the nuclear defence policy of NATO, opposed to the Government's nuclear defence policy and strongly biased against the presence of American bases in the United Kingdom. Judging from the propaganda that I have seen, they seem to believe that the Americans, our allies, are the most likely aggressors in any east-west struggle.

I make no criticism of these women's absolute right to hold those views. How could I, when I believe in and wish to cherish our free society in which we can all say what we think? I am as surprised as my constituents, however, that this group of women—self-appointed and enjoying no calculable public support except a handful of votes for their candidate in the general election and the presence of 30,000 women at a demonstration in December, a figure not remotely equalled in their latest demonstrations —should be allowed to maintain a physical presence at the gates of RAF Greenham common by courtesy of the Department of Transport.

When the women first came to Greenham common in 1981 they lived in tents. With the onset of winter, they brought in caravans which were positioned on either side of the access road, some on the common land and some on land owned by the Department of Transport. There they remained until September 1982 when the Department of Transport, following action taken by Newbury district council in respect of the council's side of the access road, evicted the seven caravans belonging to the women. The Department then covered the site, including both sides of the access road, with loads of stones and boulders. To quote a recent parliamentary answer to me, this was to prevent reoccupation by vehicles. Soil was later added as a first step towards eventual planting of the mounds."—[Official Report, 1 July 1983; Vol. 44, c. 174.] So far as I know, that was the last action taken by the Department of Transport on its site.

On either side of the access road to the main entrance to the base there are large mounds of gravel and soil in which a few weeds and scrub plants manage to survive and on which the so-called peace camp now resides. The eating or communal area is on the common land administered by Newbury district and the sleeping quarters —20 to 25 unsightly bivouacs covered with polythene sheeting—on part of the 66,698 sq m of land that the Department of Transport acquired between June 1951 and October 1952. Despite the ministerial hope that the site would not be reoccupied by vehicles, there is a van converted into a caravan on the Department of Transport site.

The area in and around the site on either side of the access road is littered with rubbish, rags of old carpet, parts of a broken fence and bags of refuse. When I drove past yesterday morning there was a wooden scaffold on which had been pinned a notice saying that some Danish women had come to the camp. The whole site is ugly, an environmental eyesore and blatantly against the district council regulations.

Yet the women seem to think that they have a preemptive right to be there. When I looked around the site some weeks ago I was told by one of them to get off the site, as though she owned the common. She advised me not to walk on to another part of the common because that was where the lavatories were. She spoke as though I were trespassing on private land rather than acknowledging that she was breaking the law by having the camp on the site.

Newbury district council has evicted the women on several occasions, most recently last May when it sought and obtained from the High Court an order for possession and injunctions against the women then in the tents on the common. On that occasion, the evicted women simply crossed the access road and took up residence on the site belonging to the Department of Transport, and there they have remained ever since.

As each High Court order to evict the women costs about £3,000 of ratepayers' money, it is not difficult to understand why the district council now wonders whether it is justified in spending any more to get rid of the women if they are to be given a safe haven on Department of Transport land. The chairman of the council's recreation and amenities committee, Councillor Cyril Woodard, recently wrote to me as follows: The Council is disappointed by the attitude of the Department of Transport and is dissatisfied with the apparent lack of concern for what it considers to be an infringement of the law … I would hope that this letter … clearly demonstrates the feeling of frustration which members and officers of the Council have about the lack of co-operation on the part of the Department of Transport during the past few months … I would stress that a much firmer and clearer indication of the Government's intention in dealing with this outbreak of lawlessness is essential if a satisfactory conclusion to the problem is to be reached. I concur absolutely with those statements. Indeed, I go further. If the Secretary of State for Defence informed the House in 1980 that he would seek the views of the local authority — Newbury district council — about environmental aspects of the coming of cruise missiles, how can the Department of Transport now ignore the council's views even to the extent of not replying to letters about the site? How can it leave the site as an ugly, weed-grown gravel mound dotted with polythene shanties and claim that it cares at all about Greenham common as common land? I stress that I am talking about the land not just as an air base but as English common land. Finally, how can the Department justify its ownership of the site when the present access road leaves so much to be desired, especially in terms of the amount of traffic that uses and will continue to use it, probably in increasing numbers, as the build-up of the base accelerates?

Locally, the so-called peace women, with their ultra-feminist views, their lack of concern for local people, their high-handedness and their public behaviour, have lost any support or respect that they ever enjoyed. From the result of the general election, it is clear that their national support is on the wane. They have become an unmitigated and expensive nuisance, and we want them to go. What is more, their demonstrations, although poorly supported, tie down police manpower.

The Thames Valley chief constable told me only at the weekend that of £3½ million budgeted for police overtime in Thames Valley for the year ending 31 March 1984, £2 million has already been spent, although two thirds of the year is still to go. Where the additional finance is to come from is not clear, but I know that the presence of these women on Department of Transport land at the entrance to the base means that they can mount incidents against the base at will, like the disgraceful and irresponsible break-in last night when they daubed two American military aircraft with paint.

Not only does that show how willing these people are to take matters into their own hands, but it again raises the whole question of security at Greenham. That is a matter for the Ministry of Defence, but it must exercise the minds of everyone in the House of Commons as this is such an important base.

It is difficult for me, as it is for Newbury district council and my constituents, to understand why these women, whose anti-social behaviour has made them so unpopular locally and whose political gestures are so expensive, should now be afforded the sanctuary of Department of Transport land wherewith to flout the wishes of the local authority although it was denied them in 1982.

Thus tonight I ask the Minister to give me a clear-cut assurance that the women will be evicted without delay, as they have been in the past. I ask her to fulfil the promises made by the Secretary of State for Defence that the local authority will be consulted about environmental matters, in particular about restoring the common land around the main entrance to its natural beauty.

I also ask my hon. Friend to look at the access road to see whether she does not agree that it could and should be improved for the sake of better road communications and in the interests of safety.

As a footnote, I should perhaps add that if my hon. Friend feels that I would leave the women homeless, I assure her that they have a house in a village close to Greenham common and I can see no possible reason why they should not vacate Greenham common and move to that house as permanent residents.