§ Mr. D. E. Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Defence why, in section 2, subsection f, of the proposed byelaws relating to RAF Brawdy, RAF Caerwent and ROF Llanishen, he introduced the offence of obstructing any other person acting in the proper exercise or execution of his duty.
§ Mr. LeeSub-paragraph 2(f) of the proposed byelaws is required to prevent a duly authorised person from being obstructed in carrying out his proper duty at the establishment concerned.
§ Mr. D. E. Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Defence which establishments under his Department's control have been, or are to be, the subject of byelaws under the Military Land Act 1892 similar to those proposed for RAF Brawdy, RAF Caerwent and ROF Llanishen.
§ Mr. LeeA total of 326 sets of byelaws, including revisions, have been made regulating individual military ranges, training areas and establishments under the Military Lands Act 1892. In the last five years 17 sets have been made at the following places:
1986
- Faslane, Coulport and Rhu Narrows
1985
- Upper Hulme Range
- RAF Greenham Common
- RAF Molesworth
- RAF Alconbury
1984
- British Underwater Test and Evaluation Centre
- Bellerby Moor and Wathgill Ranges
1983
- Ash Ranges
- Kibworth Ranges
- Purfleet Ranges
1982
- Longmoor Ranges and Demolition Training Area
- Proof and Experimental Establishment, Eskmeals
- Tregantle Ranges
1981
370W
- Her Majesty's Naval Base, Portsmouth
- Proof and Experimental Establishment, Pendine
- Salisbury Plain Military Lands
- Warcop Principal Training Area
In addition to RAF Brawdy, RAF Caerwent and ROF Cardiff, plans exist to introduce similar byelaws at a further 17 sites in due course. Military byelaws remain under regular review, and will be made or revised as necessary.
§ Mr. D. E. Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Defence why he has proposed the latest byelaws relating to ROF Llanishen, RAF Caerwent and RAF Brawdy.
§ Mr. LeeTo regulate the use of the lands concerned for the military purposes for which they are appropriated; to safeguard the public from any dangers arising; and to prevent interference with the proper functioning of the establishments.
§ Mr. D. E. Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received concerning the proposed byelaws relating to RAF Caerwent, ROF Llanishen and RAF Brawdy; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. LeeSix letters have been received concerning the proposed byelaws for RAF Caerwent, 14 for ROF Llanishenand 16 for RAF Brawdy. Ministers will consider these before deciding what form the byelaws will take.
§ Mr. D. E. Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Defence why the prohibited activities under the proposed byelaws relating to RAF Caerwent, RAF Brawdy and ROF Llanishen include the distribution or display of various objects and the affixing of them to either side of the perimeter fence.
§ Mr. LeeSecurity patrols may be hindered from carrying out their duties if objects — including large posters, flags, banners, etc.—are fixed to the perimeter fence. It is important that no obstruction of the perimeter fence should occur which may obscure sight of unlawful acts which have been, are being or are about to be committed on Ministry of Defence property. Distribution and display of certain material could, in some circumstances, act as an incitement to unlawful action.
§ Mr. D. E. Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Defence why the protected areas in the proposed byelaws relating to RAF Brawdy, RAF Caerwent and ROF Llanishen include land outside the establishments concerned.
§ Mr. LeeThe proposed byelaws apply only to land owned by the Secretary of State for Defence or over which he has a right to control public activity.
§ Mr. D. E. Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Defence how many weeks are usually allowed for objections to be made to proposed byelaws under part II of the Military Lands Act 1892.