§ Sir John FarrTo ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the main recommendations of the review of fire prevention methods for equipment stores and of storage policy for all three services he announced he had set in hand on 4 July 1983 indicating(a) those recommendations put into effect, (b) those not acted upon and (c) the reason in those cases why no action was taken.
531W
§ Mr. Freeman[holding answer 9 May 1988]: The 1983 review identified a number of possible ways of reducing the risk of heavy loss by fire in MOD equipment stores, including, where feasible, dispersal of the more valuable stocks and compartmentation of storage buildings. The use of advanced detection and suppression systems was also identified but it was recognised that their value would be limited in buildings stacked intensively with high racking.
In some cases these and other measures have been adopted as appropriate, having regard to local needs and conditions at individual sites, and in others they are in the course of introduction.
§ Sir John FarrTo ask the Secretary of State for Defence why the recommendations of review of fire prevention methods for equipment stores and of storage policy for all three services he announced he had set in hand on 4 July 1983 recommending sprinkler protection for critical Army stores were not put in hand.
§ Mr. Freeman[holding answer 9 May 1988]: The tri-service review referred to did not recommend sprinkler protection for critical Army stores. It concluded that the methods of protection of stocks from fire needed to be considered on a site-by-site basis. Each service department reassessed its arrangements for the fire protection of high o value and operationally essential stores on this basis. The Army department formulated, and is putting into effect, plans for the segregation and protection of stocks according to its replacement lead time which include the installation of sprinklers in some buildings.