What steps he is taking to ensure that Territorial Army units can continue to conduct unit-level exercises and participate, as units, in formation-level training. [16794]

Territorial Army units take part in a minimum of six days collective training each year and two of those are spent on a unit or formation-level exercise. The future training requirement for TA units will depend on the outcome of strategic defence review work into the future size and shape of the Regular and Reserve forces.

Is the Minister aware that such unit and formation-level exercises attract and retain the best-quality people in the TA? Is it true that an admiral has been asked to head the relevant strategic defence review team which will conduct the Reserve forces study? The Royal Navy has so run down the resources for its own Reserve that it is now almost the worst-recruited section of the Reserve forces.

In response to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, we recognise the importance of collective training for individuals. The TA units took part in four formation-level exercises this year, compared with two last year, and four are planned for next year. We shall obviously bear that in mind during the strategic defence review considerations.

May I remind my hon. Friend that the oldest Territorial regiment in the British Army is the Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers, based in Monmouth in my constituency? Does he agree with me that the outstanding work that it has performed in Bosnia recently demonstrates the important operational role that the Territorial forces can play following the strategic defence review?

I thank my hon. Friend for that observation. I am sure that the whole House will join me in paying tribute not only to the generality of the TA, but, in particular, to the Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers. We particularly recall those who have done and continue to do such sterling work in areas such as Bosnia. We are truly fortunate to be able to call upon such dedicated, professional and highly motivated individuals who make up the voluntary Reserves. We are intent on ensuring that their use is as flexible as possible. Indeed, only today, a reservist officer has been called up for service with UNSCOM in Iraq, which again demonstrates the flexibility and utility of our Reserve forces.

If he will make a statement on the (a) financial and (b) service personnel impact for the Royal Engineers of his Department's land mines strategy. [16795]

Our land mines strategy will have no significant impact on the operating costs or manpower of the Royal Engineers. I am pleased to say that they will be playing a direct role in the Mine Information and Training Centre at Minley.

I am grateful for that reply. Does the Minister envisage that Royal Engineers personnel will play a more active role on the ground in mine clearing overseas?

In peacetime, it is not the role of our soldiers to get involved in humanitarian mine clearing, although they have considerable expertise in the clearance of areas following conflicts. I assure the hon. Lady, and I am proud to say, that the Royal Engineers will play a distinguished part in the work of the Mine Information and Training Centre. Its expertise and knowledge will be used in Government and non-governmental organisations to ensure that the task of humanitarian de-mining, which is of such great importance in the world today, is conducted in the most professional and expert way possible.

With the Ottawa treaty being signed this Wednesday, does the Secretary of State agree that we should now be concentrating on the task of ridding ourselves of those land mines that have already been sown? Will he tell us more about what the Government will be doing to assist those involved in the humanitarian task of de-mining?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A significant moment in history will occur on Wednesday when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development will be in Canada to sign the Ottawa treaty, which will ban the export, import, transfer, manufacture and, ultimately, use of anti-personnel land mines. That, in itself, is one step in the direction in which, I believe, the world wishes to go.

Is the Minister aware that the position of the head of his Department's humanitarian mine clearance is as yet unfilled and there is a sense of urgency and concern in the mine clearance community that it should have been filled earlier?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, in every area where there is concern on humanitarian de-mining, we are moving with expedition. My visit to Bosnia was designed to highlight a new five-point programme on humanitarian de-mining. Colonel Alastair McAslan has been nominated as the British Army's representative on humanitarian de-mining. We are fulfilling all the obligations which, as a major military nation, we should.

I hope that the Secretary of State had an interesting visit to the Royal School of Military Engineering at Minley in my constituency. I was interested to hear him say that he reckons that the centre of mine expertise will not have a significant financial impact. When it was announced in October, it was reported that it would cost £125,000 to set up the centre. Will that money come out of the defence budget or that of the Overseas Development Administration?

Of course it will come from the defence budget, as it should, as it involves military de-mining. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is as proud as I am of the work that has been and will be done at Minley. The £125,000 is a good investment in the sort of jobs that will be done at that establishment by the Royal Engineers.

If Her Majesty's Government will repay to former prisoners of war the amount deducted from their pay on which they had paid taxes and which was not refunded to the German and Italian Governments in a post-war settlement. [16796]

My decision on the review of officer prisoners of war and protected personnel pay deductions during the second world war was taken after very careful consideration of the submissions from ex-officer prisoners of war and protected personnel, and of the long and detailed report of the review, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. I concurred with the findings of previous Ministers that the contemporary evidence did not support the claims being made for further refunding of deductions.

The Minister will be aware that this matter was discussed in the House earlier in the year, when there was support for the plight of ex-officer prisoners of war on both sides of the House. They will be disappointed in the answer that he has just given to my question. One of those who will be disappointed will be my constituent, Squadron Leader B. A. James MC, who, along with thousands of other people in the same circumstances, feels that he has been ignored and treated very badly. This question has rumbled on since 1980 and it is disappointing to hear the Minister say that he is not prepared to review the matter. Those involved would like there to be an independent inquiry at which prisoners of war could express their evidence in a way that they have previously been unable to do.

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, we have, as promised, reviewed the situation. I have gone through a mass of documentation, including representations from ex-officer prisoners of war and protected personnel, and through the documentation produced by the Department. However, after full examination, I have to say that the case is not made, which is why we felt it right and proper to confirm the previous Administration's decision.

Roughly how many people and how much money are involved?

There is considerable argument about several aspects of this matter, especially as much of it relates to records that no longer exist. All the issues were fully discussed in the House and fully examined by the then Government after the second world war and decisions were made on that basis. Successive Governments have gone through the information and confirmed those decisions because the case for doing otherwise has not been made.

I understand that the Government accept that money was deducted from prisoners of war and should therefore have been paid back after the war; but that, now that they have lost all their records, it is impossible to go over the case once again and decide who should be paid and how much. Can we have an assurance from the Government that, at least, individuals who have kept their own records and can prove how much they lost will be paid back?

The hon. Gentleman is not looking at the case. In reality, a number of those who came back after the war were refunded by the authorities. There was discussion about that at the time. In a number of other cases, camp funds were put together, but that is a separate issue. Many of those who had had moneys deducted and who were able to demonstrate that they did not receive the moneys in the camp got a refund after the war. All that forms part of the body of facts that we have established and gone through, which is why we made the decision.

In preparing the report, what steps were taken to ensure that the first-hand experiences of the officers involved were reflected in that report? Is the Minister aware that those ex-prisoners of war, who served our country valiantly and selflessly during the last world war, feel strongly that they have been cheated and that they cannot get justice? Would it not be wiser to offer some consultation with them or, better still, to appoint an independent person to arbitrate on that matter?

All hon. Members, this Administration and previous Administrations fully understand the tremendous contribution made by many of those individuals, both before they were taken prisoner and, in many cases, afterwards, when they tied up many German and Italian troops in trying to recapture escaping prisoners of war. That is common ground. When we move on to the question of whether deductions were adequately repaid, we find that many of the investigations took place immediately after the war, that the issues were discussed in the House of Commons and that parliamentary questions were tabled. At that time, contemporary evidence was closely examined, which is why the previous Conservative Government made the decision that they did and why, having examined the evidence after having entered office after the general election, we had to concur with their finding.

Will my hon. Friend accept that much of the evidence on which he relies was produced before the election of the Labour Government? Several of my constituents have written to me saying that they understood that they had no hope with the other lot, but that they hoped that fresh consideration would be given to this matter. Much of the evidence put to me and to my hon. Friends is new evidence, and I ask that it be reconsidered.

Much of the evidence was considered by the Attlee Labour Government after the last war and the issues examined by those who were much closer to the evidence at the time. That evidence was re-examined by the previous Administration and by this Administration and, when we did it, we looked at a number of representations from those with an individual viewpoint, both officer POWs and protected personnel. We examined that evidence and compared it with the contemporary evidence and with the documentation. It was for that reason that we took our decision.

What recent representations he has received anent the future of the royal yacht Britannia. [16798]

If he will make a statement on the future of the royal yacht Britannia. [16802]

My Department has received a large number of approaches about Britannia's future. Seven substantive preservation proposals are being examined in detail. I should prefer the yacht to be preserved, providing that the use is fitting and that there can be adequate arrangements to ensure that her fine appearance can be maintained. I hope to be able to make an announcement shortly.

I am pleased that my right hon. Friend has decided to ignore the suggestion, or request, from Buckingham palace that the vessel be scuttled or scrapped. Does he agree that neither London nor Leith has a legitimate claim on her and that, in all fairness, she should go to the Clyde, to be berthed at the Govan dry dock close to the proposed science park? The ship should not finish up at the bottom of the Atlantic; she should be returned to the Clyde, where she was built.

Buckingham palace has been kept closely informed of the options for the ship's future, and has made it clear that the decision should and will be taken by the Government. Britannia is regarded by most people as a national treasure. She has given 44 years of distinguished service to the Queen and the country. My preferred option is that the yacht should be preserved, but its use must be fitting and there must be adequate arrangements to maintain its appearance. All seven bids will be considered fairly and in detail, and we shall come to a conclusion in the near future.

May I press the Secretary of State further? When will he come to the House with a decision? The public are greatly concerned that the yacht's use should be appropriate. May I make a plea for the south coast—particularly for Portsmouth, which has a very good claim to have the yacht berthed there?

It is critical that we look at each of the proposals in some detail. I am concerned to preserve Britannia, and to ensure that her dignity and long-term future are absolutely assured. I shall take no prior view of which option is best. They will all be considered on exactly the same basis, and I hope to be able to make a decision shortly.

The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) has just issued a plea for the south coast. It will not surprise my right hon. Friend if I rise to make a plea, backed by the representations, which I know that he has received, for Plymouth. I ask not only that the vessel be preserved but that, by means of a private finance initiative, she is kept in use. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give serious consideration to that idea, along with the other representations that he has received.

I am not certain whether my hon. Friend made a slip of the tongue when she said Plymouth—perhaps she meant Portsmouth, as Plymouth has not entered a bid for consideration. We need to take a dispassionate and objective view of the proposals, and to consider all representations. I appreciate that there are strong views in each of the localities involved in the decision. They serve to underline the fact that there are strong feelings in the country that Britannia should be preserved. It is my responsibility to ensure that, if she is preserved, that is done in a way most fitting for the ship and for the country.

Most of my constituents will be delighted that the Secretary of State shares their opinion and not the opinion of the Princess Royal, which was that the ship should be scuttled. Indeed, they have made a strong case for Britannia to go to her natural home, in Portsmouth. However, if the ship is to be kept as a national treasure, I suggest that that can be done only if the Government keep some control over her by providing a dowry to ensure that the ship is restored in the way most people would expect her to be.

It has been made clear that there will be no call on public funds, but we must ascertain that in connection with any of the seven bids that are being considered. The Britannia will not be replaced or rebuilt; that decision is final. All the private finance options would have been viable only with substantial amounts of public money. I appreciate that, inevitably, the hon. Gentleman will favour the Portsmouth option, and it will be carefully considered among all the other options.

If he will make a statement on the Government's plans for a defence diversification agency. [16799]

Our aim is to fulfil our manifesto commitment to facilitate the wider application of defence industry expertise to civil uses. Although I previously announced our hope to publish a Green Paper on this before Christmas, preparatory work has taken longer than anticipated. We now expect to publish the Green Paper early in the new year. However, I can assure the House that this remains a matter of the highest priority.

I thank my hon. Friend for his assurance that this remains a priority, especially in the light of a survey of companies in my Redditch constituency with defence involvement, which suggested that, despite a reduction in their defence turnover, they believe that jobs could be preserved by defence diversification. What role will there be for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency in the Government's plans for defence diversification? Will the Government learn from the experience of industries and other countries in that process?

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the question of industries in her Redditch constituency, because many of those are the small and medium enterprises that are very much the core of our defence industry. Sometimes we concentrate too much on the prime contractors, to the exclusion of SMEs.

What estimates his Department has made of the potential for disposal of its land and buildings over the next five years. [16800]

In addition to forecast receipts this year of £140 million, we expect to receive about £200 million over the next two years for land and buildings that have already been identified as surplus. The strategic defence review is examining vigorously the scope for further disposals.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Can he assure me that the review is as vigorous as possible, to ensure both that every possible piece of land and building that can be disposed of in the new defence situation that we are facing can be sold and the money realised for the nation and that use of large parts of our land will not be blocked?

There has already been a considerable reduction in the defence estate. Further disposal will follow the identification of other areas. Of course we want to ensure that land and buildings are used to the maximum efficiency, not only to realise money for the defence budget but, quite properly, to ensure that land is available for regeneration and housing. Many local authorities are discussing those matters with us and many hon. Members are approaching us with useful, imaginative and exciting ideas for the use of that land.

Can the Minister give an undertaking that, when defence land is released, the broader range of issues will be taken into account? I think especially of land in my constituency at Royal Clarence yard, where the Ministry of Defence is proposing to retain nine and a half acres, which is central to the millennium project for the development of Portsmouth harbour. Will he ensure that the Ministry of Defence is given an assurance by Government generally that broader interests are taken into account?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. We try to take regeneration issues into account and to work with local authorities and other planning agencies wherever possible, but in many cases we must retain sites for strategic defence interests. We should not consider alienating that land if it were to the detriment of training or of the operations of the services. We are mindful of the need for regeneration and the ability, through that, to contribute to the regeneration of the whole country.

Where land and buildings are surplus to the Department's requirements, will the Minister liaise closely with planning departments, such as those in Hampshire, to see whether the sites could be put to housing use, thereby reducing the threat of green-field development on which so many of his hon. Friends seem hellbent?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman, who perhaps strayed into one of his previous incarnations in asking that question; but I take his point. We try to work with planning authorities at an early stage. That is important because it can facilitate the disposal of land, which can then be brought into effective use for the benefit of the community—with, incidentally, the best possible return for the defence budget.

What assessment he has made of the cost to Her Majesty's Government of NATO expansion. [16801]

Our assessment is that the costs associated with the enlargement of NATO to include Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic will be manageable. I and other NATO Defence Ministers will be considering tomorrow a report from NATO staffs on the military and financial implications of enlargement.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but I have been asking the question for some time and I would have expected the Government to have been able to give an assessment of the costs of NATO expansion by now. Can he assure us that the cost of expansion will be met from the current defence budget and that he will not be asking for an extra penny from what many of us already consider to be much too large a budget?

Any additional cost to our NATO subscription arising from enlargement will be met from the defence budget. Currently, that subscription costs 1 per cent. of the funds allocated to the defence budget. I believe that NATO is worth every penny that we spend on it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that there is no pressure on Poland, Hungary or the Czech Republic to spend huge sums trying to integrate into NATO? Will he also confirm that there is no pressure on us and no urgent requirement beyond what might be described as command and control procedures, integrated air defence and so on?

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the cost of NATO enlargement will be spread over a considerable period. For the new countries—the invitees to the membership of NATO—participating in collective defence is preferable to, and cheaper than, attempting to provide the same security on a national basis. Any nation—ours as well as the new countries—must be secure before it can do anything. Inevitably, the new countries would have been involved in assuring their future security by expenditure on military capability. Our country has been able to live in peace and security for almost half a century because of our membership of NATO. It is clear that the 12 nations that have applied for membership did so because they wanted the same.

What savings would come to the United Kingdom if we were to link our defence expenditure to the average of other western European countries?

I do not believe that we should link our defence expenditure to any average or any particular figure. This country should be defended strongly and it should be defended well. It is important that we establish the priorities for our country not only as a nation, but as a partner in NATO and a member of the United Nations Security Council. We make our own decisions. That was the position taken by the Labour Government in 1945 when they took Britain into NATO, and it is the position taken by the Labour Government who were elected this year.

The hon. Members for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) asked about the size of the budget. Does the Secretary of State agree with what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in last week's pre-Budget statement: that defence is not a priority?

The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Labour party was elected on a manifesto that said that we would assure the strong defence of this country. Of course it is a priority and it will remain so. This nation's defence is safe in this Government's hands.

What assessment he has made of the adequacy of heavy lift transport aircraft in Royal Air Force service. [16804]

Our strategic lift requirements, in terms both of air lift and of sea lift, are being scrutinised closely in the strategic defence review, which aims to ensure that our armed forces are properly equipped to undertake their tasks. That scrutiny is, of course, informed by my Department's assessment of the adequacy of our currently available assets.

I am grateful for that answer. In peace maintenance as in war fighting, is it not important to get to the critical spot firstest with the mostest, particularly when the United Kingdom is increasingly withdrawing from overseas bases? Will the Minister therefore assure the House that, after the review, the RAF will be able to procure at the earliest possible date a proven aircraft—the C17, which can carry a main battle tank and has been an admirable aeroplane in the United States air force?

The hon. Gentleman, who is well known for his interest and expertise in these matters, is absolutely right about the nature of the threats we now face. The old simplicities and certainties of the cold war have gone. We live in a more volatile, less predictable world and our ability to react quickly is paramount. It is also important that we have a variety of equipment, which the RAF cannot, at present, move by air. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been at pains to make that point. Several options merit consideration, including, perhaps, the future large aircraft and C17.

When considering the future of RAF heavy lift, will my hon. Friend ensure that adequate attention is paid to preserving aircraft that have served us well, particularly as we approach the millennium?

That is absolutely correct. I am pleased to say that, today, I presented a charter mark award to the RAF museum, which has played such an important role in maintaining and exhibiting our RAF heritage. I am also pleased to tell the House that, Treasury and Parliament permitting, as of today the RAF intends to pass the ownership of the vast majority—121 out of 122—of its historic aeroplanes to the RAF museum, thus showing our confidence in it and our commitment, as we approach the millennium, to retaining the heritage of past generations of the RAF for future generations.

What assessment he has made of the importance of the regimental system. [16805]

The strategic defence review's examination of the future structure of the Army is taking full account of the recognised strengths of the regimental system. It would, however, be premature for me to speculate on any particular aspect of the review's outcome.

I welcome the Minister's statement because I know that he is personally committed to the regimental system. Will he ensure that the strategic defence review does not undermine the system, which is one of the strengths of the British Army? Does he agree that the current selection procedures throughout the armed forces and in regiments are based on merit and not anything that is politically correct?

I whole-heartedly agree with the hon. Gentleman on both statements.

Does my hon. Friend agree that tradition in the regimental system can be a burden as well as a benefit? What steps will he take to ensure that regimental traditions that restrict access to the officer class are swept away? In particular, what steps is he taking to ensure that youngsters who are not from public schools can become officers and, say, guards in the cavalry regiments?

I have the utmost respect for the esprit de corps, the ethos and the almost concrete capacity of the regimental system to instil the will to fight in men—and, I hope, women—in the most difficult circumstances. As for the second part of my hon. Friend's question, we have made it clear that we want the best and the brightest in the British armed forces. We want the widest possible pool of recruits and we want the pathways to progress in the armed forces to be open to all, irrespective of sex, ethnic background or social class. We shall maintain that commitment.

On how many occasions since 1 May has the chain of command's responsibility for military discipline been the subject of intervention by Ministers, including the Lord Chancellor?

As far as Defence Ministers are concerned, none. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises, when he makes such imputations, that although he may be attempting to slur the Government Front Bench, he is also—wrongly—bringing into question the integrity of those in the Army chain of command, who would never allow such a thing. As for the hon. Gentleman's reference to the Lord Chancellor, I have no intention of commenting on internal advice or correspondence between Ministers, which I have already withheld under exemption 2 of the code of practice on access to information. The hon. Gentleman should know that that is always the position taken on such matters.

What steps his Department is taking to improve levels of recruitment from the United Kingdom's ethnic minorities. [16806]

Our aim is that the armed forces should fully embrace diversity and better reflect the ethnic composition of the society they defend. I am glad that all three services are tackling the issue with considerable energy, and that a number of local initiatives are in place. Complementing those are the tri-service initiatives in Newham and Sandwell and the Army's specific ethnic minorities recruitment campaign.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the number of men and women from our ethnic minorities who serve in the armed forces is disappointingly low? I think that it is about 1 per cent. I welcome the Army's new recruitment initiative. What are the other two services doing?

I agree with my hon. Friend. She will know that we are determined to ensure that access to our armed forces is open to the widest possible reservoir of talent. She may be aware of our initiatives in Newham and Sandwell. She will also be aware that the Ministry of Defence is 19 months into a five-year action plan with the Commission for Racial Equality. I welcome the recent initiative of the Chief of the General Staff, who introduced a series of measures to combat racism in the Army whenever it raises its head. I am glad to announce that the Army and the Royal Air Force are today introducing a confidential support hotline for counselling and advice on such matters. It will operate outside the chain of command and has the support of the chiefs of the services and the chain of command.

I welcome the Minister's comments. I urge him to meet the chairman of the Greenwich foundation for the Royal Naval college to discuss the options for ethnic minority recruitment. Will he also reassure us that the delay and the buck passing will come to an end and that the outstanding questions will be resolved so that that jewel in the nation's heritage is properly established and occupied in time for the millennium?

Order. That question does not have much to do with recruitment.

Yes, it does.

Not in my judgment.

Is not one of the least attractive features of bullying in the armed services the fact that it is often related to racism? That provides a substantial disincentive for people from the ethnic minorities to join any of the armed services. Should not such matters be the responsibility of the chain of command? Is it not clear that if there is bullying and racism in any unit, the ultimate responsibility must rest with the commanding officer of that unit?

I am not sure whether the hon. and learned Gentleman was here when I praised the chain of command and the chiefs of staff for the proactive, dynamic and absolutely committed way in which they have approached racism and bullying in the armed forces. I have no hesitation in saying that this is not being pushed as a political imperative on the chiefs of staff; it is a measure to which they are individually and collectively committed. I congratulate them on that. It is also a matter for congratulation that they have introduced, for the purposes of counselling, an independent hotline, which will serve as another building block to combat racism in the armed forces.

How many representations his Department has received on the Trident nuclear weapons system since 1 May; and how many (a) supported and (b) opposed retention of Trident. [16808]

We have received more than 150 letters and submissions about our nuclear deterrent since inviting public contributions to the strategic defence review. The majority have called for Trident to be included in the review. We have already made it clear that the review will examine all aspects of our deterrent postures to ensure that it meets changing strategic circumstances.

My right hon. Friend will recall that retaining Trident was a manifesto commitment of both Labour and the Tory party at the general election. Will he acknowledge that it is, at the very least, open to interpretation whether the British people embraced Trident by voting Labour in or rejected Trident by voting the Tories out? Given that uncertainty, will he take on board the latest polling evidence, which shows that 63 per cent. of British people believe that money spent on Trident is wasted public expenditure and that 59 per cent. of British people believe that this country would be much safer without nuclear weapons altogether? If we really are the people's Government, why do we not listen to the people and rid ourselves once and for all of these obscene weapons of mass destruction?

I should point out that the competition to my hon. Friend in Dundee, East came not from the Tory party but from the Scottish National party, which was in favour of abolishing Trident—and that my hon. Friend won and the SNP lost. Does not that suggest that people are in favour of Trident? Whatever is the preponderance of letters in the postbag or the outcome of occasional opinion polls, people believed what we said in our manifesto and they have every right to believe that we will conduct ourselves differently from the previous Government.

I welcome that robust response from the Secretary of State. Is he aware that, throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, when anxiety about nuclear deterrence was at its height, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament consistently produced strangely worded poll questions to get results such as that which has just been cited, but that whenever the British public were asked: "Do you think that Britain should continue to possess nuclear weapons as long as other countries have them?" poll after poll showed two thirds of British people in favour of retention and never more than a quarter against it?

I am not concerned with the ups and downs of individual opinion polls. After many years of deep consideration, the Labour party came to the electorate with an absolutely clear commitment to the retention of the Trident submarine fleet and with a much more urgent and determined attitude to arms control—especially nuclear arms control—than any previous Government. That is one reason why we were so emphatically returned at the general election.

What steps his Department is taking to expand employment opportunities for women in the armed forces. [16809]

Women already make a substantial contribution to the armed forces and serve alongside their male colleagues in many roles. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in a defence debate on 27 October that, from April next year, the proportion of posts open to women in the Army will rise from 47 to 70 per cent. We have also commissioned a review that will enable us to decide whether any of the remaining restrictions on employment opportunities for women in all three services can be reduced or removed.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that women have always proved themselves—especially in Bosnia, as I have witnessed—able to take part in the armed forces? Does he agree also that women are capable of taking part in combat roles in the Royal Navy? Does not that put paid to the claim that women are not suitable and that such roles are suitable only for the chaps? Thank you.

It is a pleasure. The Government, as my hon. Friend would expect, and the armed forces are committed to expanding career opportunities for women. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that service women now represent 7 per cent. of total strength and that in the 12 months to 1 September 1997 14 per cent. of new recruits were women. As I said earlier, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 27 October that from 1 April next year the proportion of posts in the Army open to women will increase to 70 per cent.

What assessment he has made of the impact of the contacts between the Church's ethical investment working group and GEC on GEC's arms exporting policy. [16829]

In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), I am answering these questions as a Church Commissioner and as the member of the Cabinet with responsibility for Church matters.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. May I put it to him, however, that since the so-called dialogue began, GEC has continually expanded its defence manufacturing and increased its exports to Indonesia—a country with one of the worst human rights records? Is there any point in this dialogue if that is the result?

I think that there is. It is fair to say that the commissioners are now being much more proactive about their investments in pursuit of their approach not to invest in any company whose main business is in armaments, gambling, breweries, distilleries, tobacco or newspapers.

Does the Home Secretary appreciate that, in a constituency with four GEC companies in it, a distinction must be drawn between weapons and weapons systems that are produced for the bona fide defence of a country from external attack and weapons such as land mines, that are universally condemned?

The hon. Gentleman makes an entirely fair point. Speaking not as a Church Commissioner but as the Member of Parliament for Blackburn, I must tell the House that many of my constituents' jobs depend on defence contractors. It is also fair to add that NATO countries account for some £2 billion of the £2.4 billion—85 per cent.—of GEC defence sales.

What assessment the Church Commissioners have made of the impact of pension provisions on the number of people applying for a career in the Church since Parliament approved the current pension provisions. [16831]

This is not strictly a matter for the Church Commissioners. I understand, however, from the advisory board of ministry that the number of candidates recommended for training for the ministry increased significantly in 1996 and this year. Confidence in the Church's arrangements for funding the ministry may have played a part in this encouraging development.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is time that the Church Commissioners took far more interest in ensuring that those who serve in the Church receive proper pensions and other rights? I consider that they are entitled to the same pension rights as Members of Parliament. I hope that the Church Commissioners will take some interest in the future of those who serve in the Church.

I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's remarks are passed on to the commissioners who deal directly and professionally with the issue. It is reasonable to point out that the number of people recommended for training was 420 in 1995, 453 in 1996 and 486 so far in 1997. The Church Commissioners are concerned to maintain the funding of clergy pensions and that is why they have made new arrangements. From 1 January next year, dioceses will meet the cost from funds provided by parishes of all clergy pension rights for future service, but not for past service. That is being done not least so that the commissioners can ensure the future funding of stipends in needy areas.

In his Budget, the Chancellor 0069mposed a £5 billion tax on pensions. How much will it cost parishioners to fund that tax?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is talking about changes to advance corporation tax. The cost to the Church Commissioners will be £12 million per annum in 1997 values. The commissioners tell me that they welcome the time allowed by the Government to plan for the removal of ACT relief and the phasing of its impact between 1999 and 2004.

How many lawyers are employed by the National Audit Office. [16832]

The National Audit Office does not employ staff as lawyers, although 10 graduates in law are employed by its auditors. The National Audit Office obtains legal advice as required from various sources including commercial firms and the Treasury Solicitor.

Is any of those people sufficiently qualified in public procurement contracts for tender under European Union regulations? Was any of them consulted before the contract was awarded for the refurbishment of Canary Wharf prior to the recent Anglo-French summit?

There is a big difference between the way in which auditors are employed by the National Audit Office and the way in which they are employed on the continent. In other countries, auditors have legal representation because they regard that as rather more important than the auditing function. The hon. Lady should understand that the Public Accounts Committee looks at value for money extremely well. I am sure that its Chairman, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), will want to satisfy himself that that continues to be the case.

What is the level of Her Majesty's forces currently deployed in the Persian gulf. [16810]

UK forces currently deployed in the Gulf consist of HMS Coventry, supported by Royal Fleet Auxiliary Bayleaf, as part of the Armilla patrol. Shore-based forces in the Gulf area comprise six RAF Tornado aircraft operating from Saudi Arabia, supported by two RAF VC10 tankers in Bahrain, which contribute to the enforcement of the no-fly zone over southern Iraq. A UK battalion is currently exercising in Kuwait as part of a routine training programme.

I thank the Minister for that answer. Will he confirm that, as long as there is a perceived threat in the region, this country will continue to maintain similar forces? Does he agree that the current regime in Iraq is all too willing to perceive as a sign of weakness any reduction in our forces or those of our allies in the area? That is another good reason for maintaining the current level of availability of British forces in the region.

Yes, we have made absolutely plain our concern about the potential existence and use of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq under the control of Saddam Hussein. That is why we have made it clear throughout this period that although we have of course sought, and will continue to seek, a diplomatic solution, we will not rule out the use of force. As the hon. Gentleman will know, HMS Invincible remains in the Mediterranean, ready to respond at short notice, giving the UK flexibility in the near future should Saddam's promise of co-operation with UNSCOM prove illusory.