FOURTH REPORT
The Defence Committee has agreed to the following
Report:
THE DRAFT VISITING FORCES AND INTERNATIONAL
HEADQUARTERS (APPLICATION OF LAW) ORDER 1999 AND THE DRAFT INTERNATIONAL
HEADQUARTERS AND DEFENCE ORGANISATIONS (DESIGNATIONS AND PRIVILEGES)
(AMENDMENT) ORDER 1999
1. On 2nd February last year we published a report
on the draft Visiting Forces and International Headquarters (Application
of Law) (Amendment) Order 1998.[1]
The principal purpose of that Order was to extend to the forces
of nations which were members of NATO's Partnership for Peace
(PfP) the same immunities and privileges when visiting the UK
as already applied to visiting forces from NATO member states
and Commonwealth countries. The fundamental purpose of these immunities
and privileges is to enable these visiting forces to engage in
joint exercises with UK forces on UK territory. Certain privileges
and immunities are also granted to permanently stationed visiting
forces and staff of international headquarters. The only significant
permanently stationed visiting forces in the UK are from the USA;
there are a number of NATO Commands which are also UK based.
2. As we described in our previous report, countries
listed in the Order are granted these immunities and privileges
on a mutual and reciprocal basis under the provisions of the NATO
'Status of Forces Agreement' (SOFA).[2]
We discussed the implications of the draft Order and recommended
its approval by the House. The House approved it on 4th February
1998.
3. During our examination of the MoD witnesses, we
were told that a general revision of the provisions encompassed
by last year's Order was in preparation.[3]
On 15th April 1999, the draft International Headquarters and Defence
Organisations (Designations and Privileges) (Amendment) Order
1999 and the draft Visiting Forces and International Headquarters
(Application of Law) Order 1999 were laid before the House.[4]
They are both subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
The second of these embodies the wholesale revision of these provisions
promised by the MoD last year.
4. We received an explanatory memorandum from the
MoD, dated 6th April 1999, outlining the main provisions of these
draft Orders, and this is appended to this Report.[5]
In our Report last year, we were critical of the quality of the
explanatory memorandum attached to the draft Order.[6]
We are pleased to note that our recommendation that explanatory
notes to statutory instruments should be genuinely explanatory
has been acted upon by the MoD, and we are grateful for the detailed
explanation we have been given of the provisions of the two draft
Orders before us this year. Its quality has obviated the need
for us to take further oral evidence from the Department.
5. The two draft Orders are complementary. The Application
of Law Order defines the various privileges and immunities extended
to visiting forces and international headquarters by the Order
under the provisions of section 8 of the Visiting Forces Act 1952,
and lists the countries to whose armed forces it applies.[7]
The Designation Order lists those international headquarters and
defence organisations to which various provisions of the International
Headquarters and Defence Organisations Act 1965 apply.[8]
6. The main provisions of the Application of Law
Order are explained in Annex A to the MoD's explanatory memorandum.[9]
It does not appear to include any significant innovations in these
immunities and privileges. It lists all countries which have made
PfP agreements with NATO, but the immunities and privileges only
apply to those which have become a party to the PfP SOFA.[10]
The memorandum also explains the changes in the headquarters listed
under the Designation Order.[11]
As the memorandum explains, the only privilege applying to these
headquarters listed in Part II of the Schedule is 'inviolability
of archives', which in effect places the files and records of
such organisations beyond the reach of the courts. Again, the
Designation Order does not extend any new privileges to the Scheduled
Organisations beyond those already encompassed in the 1965 Act.
7. In our recent Report on the future of NATO, we
discussed the role of Partnership for Peace in meeting some of
the aspirations of states seeking membership of NATO who were
unlikely to receive invitations to join the Alliance at the Washington
Summit. [12]
The PfP has also been a great success in cementing diplomatic
and military relations between the Alliance and countries which
do not aspire to membership of NATO. The provisions of the draft
Visiting Forces and International Headquarters (Application of
Law) Order are a small but necessary step to enhance and improve
the cooperation made possible by the PfP, and as such deserve
our wholehearted endorsement. We recommend that both draft
Orders should be approved by the House.
1 Second Report, Session 1997-98, HC 521 Back
2 ibid, para 7 Back
3 ibid, Q 61 Back
4 Votes and Proceedings, 15 April 1999, Appendix I, p 408 Back
5 Appendix, pp vii-xi Back
6 Second Report, 1997-98, op cit, para 13 Back
7 ibid, para 5 Back
8 Appendix, pp vii-viii Back
9 Appendix, pp viii-xi Back
10 Annex to Appendix, para 2 Back
11 Appendix, paras 11 and 12 Back
12 Third Report, Session 1998-99, The Future of NATO: The Washington Summit, HC 39, paras 135-171 Back
|