| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Interception of Communications
Mr. Baker:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he takes to ensure that the terms of the Geneva International Telecommunications conventions are complied with by (a) UK nationals involved in military activities and (b) US nationals based in the UK involved in military activities. [7625]
14 Jul 1997 : Column: 59
Dr. Reid:
Article 48 of the International Telecommunication Union Convention allows members complete freedom with regard to military radio installations, except that these should as far as possible observe statutory provisions relative to giving assistance in case of distress and to measures to prevent harmful interference, and regulations concerning the types of emission and the frequencies to be used.
Every military radio user requires authorisation from the Ministry of Defence, which is responsible for ensuring that all military use of the radio spectrum in the United Kingdom complies with the Convention and for allocating frequencies to users.
Visiting forces' radio systems are authorised for use by the Ministry of Defence on the basis of a technical assessment. If the deployment of radio equipment is approved in principle the procedure for assigning frequencies should prevent operation of the equipment from causing harmful interference to existing equipment.
If interference is reported in spite of the procedures the complaint will be investigated.
Mr. Baker:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the security of tenure agreement between the UK and US Governments which allows the use of RAF Menwith Hill by US personnel comes to an end. [7629]
Dr. Reid:
There is no security of tenure agreement in place at RAF Menwith Hill. The assurances that were given to the US authorities in 1955 and again in 1976 that the site would be made available to the US Forces by Her Majesty's Government for a period of 21 years, and which are known as the security of tenure arrangements, were given to facilitate the commitment of US funding to the station. They were an administrative mechanism, and did not constitute any form of renewable lease for the site.
Mr. Baker:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what safeguards are in place to prevent American personnel based in the United Kingdom under the Visiting Forces Act 1952 committing offences under the Interception of Communications Act 1985; and what mechanisms are in place to detect any such offences.[7619]
Dr. Reid:
Under the terms of the agreements that we have with the US authorities, the US visiting forces are subject to the laws of the UK in the same way as their British counterparts and this includes respecting the provisions of the Interception of Communications Act. We are content that the US authorities adhere scrupulously to these agreements.
Mr. Baker:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what provisions exist for (a) the UK Government and (b) UK nationals to secure compensation for damage or losses caused by US personnel based in the UK who are on duty.[7631]
Dr. Reid:
Provisions contained in the NATO Status of Forces Agreement deal with compensation issues. The agreement establishes a mutual waiver under which contracting parties will not claim from each other if the damaged property was owned and used by its Armed Forces. If the property is owned by a UK National, the Ministry of Defence will investigate a claim and pay any compensation due, in accordance with United Kingdom law. The United States will reimburse the United
14 Jul 1997 : Column: 60
Kingdom 75 per cent. of the sum paid. This arrangement is of course reciprocal. Alternatively, a third party can issue proceedings against the US State Department through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Mr. Baker:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions have taken place between the UK and US Governments regarding RAF Menwith Hill since 1 May; and if he will make a statement. [7627]
Dr. Reid:
Discussions between UK and US officials take place on a regular basis in order to ensure that arrangements at the stations work smoothly.
Mr. Baker:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what statutory provisions govern the powers of United States service men at Royal Air Force Menwith to intercept communications. [7494]
Dr. Reid:
US visiting forces in the UK are subject to all applicable UK laws.
Mr. Baker:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he has taken to ensure that American personnel based at Menwith Hill do not monitor United Kingdom diplomatic and economic communications. [7623]
Dr. Reid:
Senior UK personnel are integrated into every level at RAF Menwith Hill and we are thus in a position to be entirely confident that British staff are aware of all facets of operations and that no activity considered inimical to British interests is carried out there.
Mr. Baker:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what factors underlay the decision to redesignate Menwith Hill Station as RAF Menwith Hill. [7621]
Dr. Reid:
RAF Menwith Hill is a Crown freehold site belonging to the Ministry of Defence. The designation RAF Menwith Hill came into effect on 19 February 1996. This was simply an administrative change to bring the base into line with other RAF sites made available by the Ministry of Defence to the United States Government.
Mr. Baker:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many claims and what sum in total has been paid (a) to the United Kingdom Government and by whom and (b) by the United Kingdom Government and to whom for damage to property under the Agreement regarding the Status of Forces of Parties to the North Atlantic treaty since 1967. [7616]
Dr. Reid:
The NATO Status of Forces Agreement establishes a mutual waiver under which Contracting Parties will not claim from each other if the damaged property was owned and used by its Armed Forces. If, however, such damage results from reckless acts or reckless omissions, wilful misconduct or gross negligence of a contracting party, the costs of any liability will be borne by that party alone.
The cost of claims for damage from third parties are shared between the relevant contracting parties on a ration of 75 per cent. : 25 per cent. The UK Government prepare a statement twice a year requesting reimbursement of 75 per cent. of the sums paid in the course of that period in respect of claims from third parties as a result of damage caused by the relevant contracting party.
14 Jul 1997 : Column: 61
Information on property damage claims is not, however, held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
Mr. Baker:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if US personnel based in the UK who are deemed to be on duty are permitted to carry arms anywhere within the UK. [7632]
Dr. Reid:
Members of the US forces may carry firearms on condition that they are authorised to do so by their orders.
Mr. Baker:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which RAF bases housing US personnel are (a) regarded and (b) not regarded as part of the NATO network. [7626]
Dr. Reid:
All US visiting Forces based in the United Kingdom are available to undertake tasks in support of NATO.
Mr. Baker:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will review the Visiting Forces Act 1952 in respect of the limits it imposes on the absolute legal jurisdiction of the United Kingdom Government within the United Kingdom; [7624]
Dr. Reid:
I am satisfied that the provisions of the Visiting Forces Act 1952 remain appropriate in order to comply with our continuing international treaty obligations.
Mr. Baker:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RAF personnel are based at RAF Menwith Hill; and what are their functions and powers. [7620]
Dr. Reid:
There is a small number of RAF personnel at RAF Menwith Hill. I am withholding the further information requested under exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.
Mr. Baker:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Government (a) is consulted on, (b) is informed of and (c) gives clearance to movements of nuclear materials by US personnel within the UK. [7603]
Dr. Reid:
All movements of nuclear materials, including weapons, by US personnel within the UK and its airspace take place in full consultation with my Department. This enables appropriate safety cover to be provided by MOD personnel.
Mr. Sedgemore:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 19 June, Official Report, column 262-63, why the RUC was not informed immediately when it became apparent that some plastic baton rounds were firing faster than the specified velocity.[8264]
Dr. Reid
[holding answer 11 July 1997]: As I explained in answers to my hon. Friend on 19 June, Official Report, column 263 and 1 July, Official Report, column 738, the assessment of initial tests in early 1996
14 Jul 1997 : Column: 62
showed that the tests were not conclusive. Following further tests, my Department decided in February 1997 that plastic baton rounds manufactured in 1994 should be withdrawn. The RUC were notified of this in March.
Mr. Sedgemore:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 19 June, Official Report, columns 262-63, how many of the 45,000 withdrawn plastic baton rounds are to be (a) reworked and (b) incinerated. [8273]
Dr. Reid
[holding answer 11 July 1997]: Following further consideration, we have decided that of the 45,000 rounds, 14,000 will be considered for reworking but may be incinerated if they do not meet the required standard. The remaining rounds not being reworked will be expended in training.
Mr. Sedgemore:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what happened to the plastic baton rounds from the faulty batch supplied in 1994 which were neither among those withdrawn in April this year nor among those fired by the RUC and the Army since that time.[8265]
Dr. Reid
[holding answer 11 July 1997]: All batches of baton rounds manufactured in 1994 were withdrawn from operational use in April.
Mr. Sedgemore:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 30 June, Official Report, columns 62-63, if the guidelines ruling the use of plastic baton rounds by the armed forces are a classified document. [8275]
Dr. Reid
[holding answer 11 July 1997]: The guidelines currently issued to service men are classified restricted. I have, however, decided that, in accordance with the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, the information concerned should be made available. As my hon. Friend will know from my letter of 7 July, a copy of the current text of the guidelines has been placed in the Library.
Mr. Sedgemore:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 19 June, Official Report, columns 262-63, what facts need to be established before he can consider action against the manufacturer of faulty plastic baton rounds. [8272]
Dr. Reid
[holding answer 11 July 1997]: The case for possible action against the manufacturer will be considered when a more detailed assessment of the cause of the problems can be completed.
Mr. Sedgemore:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who monitors the use of plastic baton rounds by the Army in Northern Ireland. [8270]
Dr. Reid
[holding answer 11 July 1997]: The use of plastic baton rounds by the Army in Northern Ireland is monitored by commanders at all levels.
Mr. Sedgemore:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 10 June, Official Report, column 372, what procedures were in place in 1994 to ensure that stocks of plastic baton rounds continued to conform to specifications; and what new procedures are now being put in place to ensure that existing stocks of plastic baton rounds continue to conform to specifications. [8271]
14 Jul 1997 : Column: 63
Dr. Reid
[holding answer 11 July 1997]: All batches of rounds were tested by the contractor at the time of manufacture to enable the Department to accept them against the proof specification. There was no further regular in-service testing within the shelf life of the baton rounds, other than observation of performance in training. A new regime of testing is being introduced for all future purchases, under which each batch will be tested by the manufacturer followed by an independent assessment directly after manufacture and then regularly during the service life of each batch.
Mr. Sedgemore:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 30 June, Official Report, column 73-74, if alternative supplies of plastic baton rounds meeting the correct specifications were available early in 1995 when it became apparent that the 1994 rounds were faulty. [8268]
Dr. Reid
[holding answer 11 July 1997]: No alternative supplies were available in 1995.
Mr. Sedgemore:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 30 June, Official Report, columns 262-63, when the results of tests on baton rounds manufactured in 1996 became available.[8274]
Dr. Reid
[holding answer 11 July 1997]: The contractor's test results were available immediately after manufacture of each lot between January and October 1996. Additional firing tests were completed in August 1996 with a report available in October 1996.
Mr. Sedgemore:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 30 June, Official Report, column 73-74, if the plastic baton rounds made in 1996 were specifically manufactured to ensure that their velocities were below the recommended level. [8267]
Dr. Reid
[holding answer 11 July 1997]: The 1996 rounds were specifically manufactured to ensure that their velocities were below the upper specification limit of 70 metres per second.
(2) what plans he has to review the Visiting Forces Act 1952; and if he will make a statement. [7628]
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |