Goose Bay (Hansard, 20 December 1994)

§ Mr. McFall
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the planned number of low-level sorties to be flown by Royal Air Force aircraft from Canadian forces Goose Bay in each of the years(a) 1992, (b) 1993 and (c) 1994; and what were the reasons for any divergence between the planned number of sorties and the actual numbers of sorties flown in each year.

§ Mr. Soames
In 1994, it was planned to fly 1,212 sorties, the vast majority of which would have involved an element of low flying. In the event, 1,299 sorties were1188W actually flown. Records of the number of sorties planned to be flown in 1992 and 1993 are not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Any divergence between the number of sorties planned and those readily actually flown could be the result of a variety of factors including; aircraft availability and weather but chiefly the effect of unforeseen operational deployments.

§ Mr. McFall
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many weapons, and of what types, were dropped or fired by Royal Air Force aircraft during training from Canadian forces base Goose Bay in the 1994 flying season.

§ Mr. Soames
Some 290 inert 1,000 lb bombs and 297 inert 28 lb practice bombs were dropped by RAF aircraft during training from Canadian forces base Goose Bay in the 1994 flying season. No weapons were "fired" by RAF aircraft.

§ Mr. McFall
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if payments to the Canadian authorities for Royal Air Force use of facilities at Goose Bay were withheld or postponed following introduction of the new cost recovery methodology by the Canadian Department of National Defence in the financial year 1990–91.

§ Mr. Soames
Part of the payment to the Canadian authorities for financial year 1990–91 was postponed while the introduction of the revised cost recovery methodology was the subject of correspondence between United Kingdom and Canadian officials.

§ Mr. McFall
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what commitments to, or agreements on, future costs to the United Kingdom Government were contained in the agreements signed with the Canadian authorities in 1986 concerning Royal Air Force access to training at Goose Bay.

§ Mr. Soames
The United Kingdom agreed to pay for those costs attributable to the Royal Air Force's use of Goose Bay.

§ Mr. McFall
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the presentation made by the head of the Royal Air Force delegation to the meeting of the Goose Bay military users committee in June 1994.

§ Mr. Soames
The head of the Royal Air Force delegation did not make a presentation to the Goose Bay military users committee in June 1994.

§ Mr. McFall
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration has been given to the pooling of Royal Air Force and German air force maintenance and operations facilities for Tornado aircraft deployed for training at Canadian forces base Goose Bay.

§ Mr. Soames
Consideration of potential cost savings measures between all military users is a constant process.

§ Mr. McFall
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what agreements have been reached with other NATO air forces concerning the sharing of air-to-air refuelling assets for transatlantic deployment of fighter aircraft to Canadian forces base Goose Bay;
(2) what agreements have been reached with other NATO air forces concerning the sharing of air transport assets for transatlantic deployment of air and ground crew from Europe to Canadian forces base Goose Bay.

§ Mr. Soames
No agreements have been reached, although a degree of informal pooling of resources 1189W already takes place between the allied detachments at Goose Bay.