United States Forces in Britain (Hansard, 23 February 1987)

§ Mr. Strang
asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the functions of the Royal Air Force station commanders at United States bases in the United Kingdom.

§ Mr. Stanley
I will answer shortly.

§ Mr. Strang
asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those military installations used by United States forces in the United Kingdom at which there is no Royal Air Force station commander.

§ Mr. Stanley
I will answer shortly.

§ Mr. Strang
asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on forthcoming changes in the types, numbers, units and bases of United States Air Force aircraft deployed in Britain;
(2) if there are any plans to base United States Air Force F-15E aircraft in the United Kingdom.

§ Mr. Stanley
Future deployment plans are generally classified. Where firm deployment plans can be released without prejudice to security the USAF does so, and has announced the replacement of its KC-135 tanker fleet with the re-engined KC-135R and its intention to withdraw the RF-4C aircraft currently based at RAF Alconbury.
Mr. Strang asked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the purpose of the trials conducted by aircraft of the United States Air Force 4450th test group from Royal Air Force Woodbridge in November 1984 and May 1986.

£ million

1982–83 1983–84 1984–85 1985–86 ⁵1986–87

A. PSA services

New construction and maintenance¹ 11.4 95.7 103.9 117.7 152.9

New construction funded by NATO² 18.1 20.4 8.0 6.7 22.4

Host nation support³ n.a. 0.7 4.1 4.0 6.1

PSA administrative expenditure⁴

Costs 14.7 17.8 23.8 29.0 32.0

Receipts 4.7 7.0 6.0 7.8 21.5

B. MOD services

MOD civilians employed at United States bases¹ (including MOD police)

Costs 14.5 18.0 22.5 26.0

Rents for married quarters

Costs 1.5 1.7 2.1 2.6

Receipts⁶ 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.4

¹ These costs are recovered in full.

² These costs are recovered from NATO infrastructure funds.

³ These are costs incurred by the United Kingdom in pursuance of its obligations under the Status of Forces Agreement for which no recovery is made.

⁴ These costs reflect expenses incurred by PSA in design of buildings, letting contracts, supervising work in progress and consultancy fees. The under.recovery reflects reduced charges raised by agreement with the United States authorities for defence and foreign policy reasons.

⁵ Figures for 1986–87 are forecasts throughout.

⁶ The under.recovery reflects reduced charges raised since 1 October 1983 in recognition of the importance of continuing United States/United Kingdom cooperation in the common defence effort.

140W

§ Mr. Stanley
Both deployments were part of a continuing series which provide experience of flying in Europe for US-based air crews.

§ Mr. Strang
asked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total cost to his Department of purchasing additional land in Britain for use by United States forces in each year since 1982.

§ Mr. Freeman
Under long-standing arrangements, surplus MOD land is made available without charge to United States forces stationed in the United Kingdom. The MOD occasionally purchases additional land for use by United States forces to meet specific operational needs. Records are not maintained in a form which would enable the cost of these limited acquisitions to be identified separately except at disproportionate cost. All MOD surplus land made available to United States forces and additional land purchased for their use remains in MOD ownership.

§ Mr. Strang
asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what has been the annual cost to the Exchequer of providing land and property management, building design and maintenance, security and other services to United States military installations in Britain in each year since 1982;
(2) what has been the annual income to the Exchequer from United States Government repayments in respect of British Government provision of land and property management, building design and maintenance, security and other services to United States military installations in the United Kingdom in each year since 1982.

§ Mr. Freeman
The main services provided to the United States forces stationed in this country on a repayment basis, with details of costs and receipts at current prices for the years requested, are as follows: 141W For the provision of land to the United States forces stationed in this country I refer to my further written answer of today's date.

§ Mr. Strang
asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the value of United States military construction projects in Britain, at constant prices, in each year since 1975.

§ Mr. Freeman
The value of new construction undertaken for the United States forces stationed in the United Kingdom at constant 1986–87 prices was as follows:

£ million

1977–78 81.8

1978–79 70.5

1979–80 62.6

1980–81 61.6

1981–82 49.4

1982–83 69.6

1983–84 85.8

1984–85 71.4

1985–86 72.1

1986–87 112.3

Notes:
1. Figures prior to 1977–78 are not available.

2. The figure for 1986–87 is a forecast.

§ Mr. Strang
asked the Secretary of State for Defence if there is any agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the United States authorities about the standards to which facilities at United States bases are constructed in terms of their suitability for use by United Kingdom armed forces.

§ Mr. Freeman
No such specific agreement exists but all construction work undertaken for the United States in this country has to comply with United Kingdom building regulations, standards and codes of practice.

§ Mr. Strang
asked the Secretary of State for Defence if the role of the United States Air Force RF-4C Phantom aircraft stationed at Royal Air Force Alconbury includes a nuclear strike task.

§ Mr. Stanley
No.

§ Mr. Strang
asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether the existing understanding between the United Kingdom and the United States of America governing the use by the United States of its bases in the United Kingdom in an emergency applies equally to United States forces under national command and United States forces under North Atlantic Treaty Organisation command:
(2) whether the existing understanding between the United Kingdom and the United States of America governing the use by the United States of its bases in the United Kingdom in an emergency applies equally to conventional and nuclear weapons;
(3) whether the arrangements for implementing the existing understanding between the United Kingdom and the United States of America governing the use by the United States of its bases in the United Kingdom in an emergency are the same for conventional as for nuclear weapons.

§ Mr. Stanley
I will answer shortly.

£ million
	1982–83	1983–84	1984–85	1985–86	⁵1986–87
A. PSA services
New construction and maintenance¹	11.4	95.7	103.9	117.7	152.9
New construction funded by NATO²	18.1	20.4	8.0	6.7	22.4
Host nation support³	n.a.	0.7	4.1	4.0	6.1
PSA administrative expenditure⁴
Costs	14.7	17.8	23.8	29.0	32.0
Receipts	4.7	7.0	6.0	7.8	21.5
B. MOD services
MOD civilians employed at United States bases¹ (including MOD police)
Costs	14.5	18.0	22.5	26.0
Rents for married quarters
Costs	1.5	1.7	2.1	2.6
Receipts⁶	1.5	1.3	1.2	1.4
¹ These costs are recovered in full.
² These costs are recovered from NATO infrastructure funds.
³ These are costs incurred by the United Kingdom in pursuance of its obligations under the Status of Forces Agreement for which no recovery is made.
⁴ These costs reflect expenses incurred by PSA in design of buildings, letting contracts, supervising work in progress and consultancy fees. The under.recovery reflects reduced charges raised by agreement with the United States authorities for defence and foreign policy reasons.
⁵ Figures for 1986–87 are forecasts throughout.
⁶ The under.recovery reflects reduced charges raised since 1 October 1983 in recognition of the importance of continuing United States/United Kingdom cooperation in the common defence effort.

	£ million
1977–78	81.8
1978–79	70.5
1979–80	62.6
1980–81	61.6
1981–82	49.4
1982–83	69.6
1983–84	85.8
1984–85	71.4
1985–86	72.1
1986–87	112.3