| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Meat Purchases
Dr. David Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much meat was purchased by his Department in each of the last five years; how much of this was British meat in 1995; and if he will list the other countries from which he purchases meat, together with the quantity of meat. [8987]
Mr. Arbuthnot: Since 1 October 1994, when the Ministry of Defence food supply contract commenced, NAAFI has purchased meat for my Department. Before that date the Ministry purchased meat direct. The value of meat purchased for the last five financial years is as follows:
| Financial year | Purchased by MOD | Purchased by NAAFI |
|---|---|---|
| 1990-91 | 34.290 | -- |
| 1991-92 | 30.122 | -- |
| 1992-93 | 30.581 | -- |
| 1993-94 | 30.376 | -- |
| 1994-95 | (28)15.664 | (29)13.877 |
(28) April to September 1994.
(29) October to March 1995.
During calendar year 1995 my Department bought £8.6 million British meat from NAAFI and £19.861 million overseas meat from NAAFI. NAAFI procures meat from wholesalers and importers on the open market to obtain the best possible price. The source of each cut of meat therefore varies from month to month, however, all pork, boned and rolled sirloin, beef diced, beef mince and ox liver have always been United Kingdom sourced. NAAFI does not have detailed records of how much meat has been procured from each overseas source, but the countries most commonly used are: Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, Denmark, Holland, Australia, New Zealand, Eire, France and Chile.
This information applies to beef, pork, lamb, poultry, gammon, offal, veal, rabbit, goat, and bacon but not to manufactured products such as sausages, pasties or burgers.
Dr. David Clark:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the use of low-level attacks by British aircraft during the Gulf war; what changes to low-level flying operations were made during the war; and if he will state the reasons for these changes. [8991]
Mr. Soames:
In the initial stages of the air campaign Tornado GR1s carried out low-level attacks against Iraqi airfields. These were established RAF tactics designed to allow attacking aircraft to delay detection by hostile radars and to minimise the effectiveness of air and ground defences, particularly when on missions against heavily defended targets. Moreover, the JP233 airfield denial
15 Jan 1996 : Column: 423
weapon, an important element of plans to disrupt Iraqi air operations, was designed to be delivered at low level. It was always the intention that attacks would in due course be switched to medium level and this decision was taken by the operational commanders on day four of the campaign once it became clear that the task of grounding the Iraqi air force had been achieved and that, with the substantial degradation of the Iraqi air defence system, the threat to operations at medium level was much reduced.
The lessons of the Gulf war have been extensively evaluated. The principal lessons were set out in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1992" and further evidence was provided to the Defence Select Committee in connection with its report on the implementation of the lessons learned from Operation Granby. In respect of low flying, the conflict demonstrated the need to provide a more flexible capability for the full spectrum of operational environments. The need for low-level flying nevertheless remains. In many scenarios it is critical to the success of operations and the special skills required cannot be acquired at short notice.
Mr. Sheerman:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to ensure that new ambulances for the Army are locally sourced. [9455]
Mr. Arbuthnot:
I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Cambridgeshire (Sir A. Grant) on 9 January, Official Report, column 3.
Mr. Sheerman:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how frequently Army ambulances are replaced. [9457]
Mr. Arbuthnot:
The last major procurement of Army ambulances was made between 1980 and 1983.
Mr. Sheerman:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many ambulances are currently operated by the Army; and when the ambulance fleet is due for replacement. [9458]
Mr. Arbuthnot:
The Army currently operates 858 ambulances which are due for replacement over the next four years.
Mr. Livingstone:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what collaboration has occurred in the field of chemical and biological warfare as a result of the mutual defence assistance programme between Britain and the United States of America. [7306]
Mr. Arbuthnot:
No reference has been found in the records available to such a programme.
Mr. Redmond:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will consider instructing the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency to hold records centrally on the annual amount it spends on overseas travel; and if he will make a statement. [8433]
15 Jan 1996 : Column: 424
Mr. Arbuthnot:
No. The delegation of authority for expenditure on overseas travel to managers within the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency's business sectors conforms fully with my Department's financial management procedures and I see no reason to interfere with the chief executive's arrangements for managing the agency.
Mr. Redmond:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will consider instructing the Royal Air Force Training Group Defence Agency to hold records centrally on the annual amount it spends on overseas travel; and if he will make a statement. [8432]
Mr. Arbuthnot:
No. The delegation of authority for expenditure on overseas travel to managers within the Royal Air Force Training Group Defence Agency conforms fully with my Department's financial management procedures and I see no reason to interfere with the chief executive's arrangements for managing the agency.
Mr. Winnick:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions and on what dates he was asked directly or indirectly, formally or otherwise, by the Saudi authorities about the presence in the United Kingdom of Dr. al-Masari; and what response he gave on each occasion. [9173]
Mr. Arbuthnot:
The presence and activities of Dr. al-Masari in the UK have been raised by the Saudi authorities on a number of occasions. The Saudis have been told that Her Majesty's Government disapprove of Dr. al-Masari's activities, and that he would be treated strictly in accordance with UK and international law.
Mr. Flynn:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what advice and training is provided to British troops to withstand the effects of psychological torture. [9010]
Mr. Soames:
Conduct after capture training is made available to those personnel most vulnerable to capture in time of war or other crisis.
Mr. Hanson:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on allegations of torture made by British service personnel while hostages of Serbian forces. [8650]
Mr. Flynn:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reports he has received of the allegations of psychological torture of British troops taken hostage in Bosnia; and what assessment he has made of their accuracy. [9009]
Mr. Soames:
There is no evidence that the British service personnel who were taken hostage by the Bosnian Serbs in May 1995 were physically tortured or subjected to a campaign of psychological abuse. While the conditions in which they were held were far from ideal, they were generally treated satisfactorily. However, in an isolated incident, one British soldier had a threat made against his life by his captors. This was totally unacceptable conduct by the Bosnian Serbs and we
15 Jan 1996 : Column: 425
strongly condemn it. All UK hostages were debriefed on their release and reports have been forwarded to the UN war crimes tribunal which is investigating the detention of UN personnel.
Dr. David Clark:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many service personnel are involved in the implementation force de-mining effort in Bosnia; and what form of training they have received; [9003]
(3) what assessment he has made of the problems posed by land mines placed in Bosnia; and if he will make a statement. [9001]
Mr. Soames:
The UK's contribution to IFOR includes 42 service personnel who are specially trained in explosive ordnance disposal. Their role is, however, limited to monitoring and co-ordinating the programme for the clearance of mines and related deices, except where there is a serious threat to life or where clearance is necessary to allow IFOR to complete assigned tasks. Otherwise, under the terms of the peace agreement, clearance is the responsibility of the consenting parties themselves. They are required to complete clearance within the zones of separation by 19 January. The work is in progress, although efforts are being hampered by poor weather and incomplete minefield records.
Dr. Clark:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many service personnel have been injured as (a) a direct and (b) an indirect consequence of land mines placed in Bosnian territory; [8984]
Mr. Soames:
Information is not available in the format requested. However, since operations began in the former Yugoslavia, three British service personnel have been killed and eight seriously injured in mine explosions, none of these during IFOR's operations.
Dr. Clark:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the cost of the IFOR de-mining effort in Bosnia. [9004]
Mr. Soames:
It is not possible to identify separately the estimated cost of IFOR's monitoring and co-ordinating of the mine clearance programme which is itself the responsibility of the parties to the peace agreement.
(2) if he will make a statement about the progress of the IFOR de-mining effort in Bosnia; and if it is running to schedule; [8986]
(2) how many service personnel have been injured as part of the IFOR de-mining effort in Bosnia. [9005]
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |