Monday 14 July 1997, House of Commons: Questions on Menwith Hill and Interception of Communications 22 Interception of Communications 58 Interception of Communications ************************ Monday 14 July 1997, House of Commons Column: 22 Interception of Communications Mr. Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how many United Kingdom personnel are based inside the National Security Agency headquarters in Washington; and what is their function; [7617] (2) how many National Security Agency employees are based inside GCHQ at Cheltenham; what is their function; and what controls exist to ensure that the British national interest is protected. [7618] Column: 23 Mr. Robin Cook: It is a long-standing practice not to disclose details of specific staff deployments by the intelligence and security agencies. However, there are a number of UK personnel at National Security Agency (NSA) headquarters and a number of NSA personnel at GCHQ in a variety of posts. Mr. Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what bilateral agreements exist between GCHQ and the National Security Agency allowing American personnel to tap the communications of United Kingdom nationals. [7622] Mr. Cook: United Kingdom law applies to US operations in the UK and prohibits the unauthorised interception of communications carried on UK public telecommunications systems. National Security Agency personnel comply with that law. Mr. Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many complaints have been received since 1990 from EU Governments concerning the interception of diplomatic and commercial communications by US personnel based in the UK. [7630] Mr. Cook: We are not aware of any such complaints. **************** Column: 58 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] 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 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. Visiting Forces 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. 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. 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] (2) what plans he has to review the Visiting Forces Act 1952; and if he will make a statement. [7628] 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. RAF Menwith Hill 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.