If he will make a statement on the impact of current military operations on recruitment and retention in the armed forces. [75964]

Although the current level of operational commitment of our armed forces is high, recruitment remains buoyant, particularly in the Army. However, retention remains a concern—although there does not appear to be a direct link between retention and commitment. Retention remains a key priority for this Government and we are pursuing a number of important initiatives to address the issue.

Does the Secretary of State agree with the recent remarks by the Chief of the Defence Staff? He said that, even if recruitment and retention were at target levels, we could sustain only

"two medium level operations, such as we are doing in Bosnia … one … with fighting ending in six months."

The Chief of the Defence Staff continued:

"I do not think we could sustain two for longer than that."

Does the Secretary of State agree with his principal professional adviser? Would we give up our operations in Bosnia or in Kosovo after six months?

My senior military adviser gives me guidance all the time and he is happy with the current proposals. Clearly, our commitment in Kosovo—which is considerable—involves a number of troops serving for only the first six months if they are deployed as part of an implementation force into Kosovo as members of the allied Rapid Reaction Corps. We are already seeing a reduction in the number of troops in Bosnia and I hope that that trend will continue as progress is made in that country.

Does my right hon. Friend think that recruitment and retention in the armed forces might be affected if we do not take action and send a clear message to President Milosevic that he must sign the Rambouillet settlement or face the prospect of air strikes? Although military action is difficult and unpalatable, does my right hon. Friend believe that it is better to take that action rather than to risk further bloodshed in the Balkans?

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I am well aware of the strain that our troops are under at present, and never a day goes by without our considering how best to deal with that problem.

My hon. Friend is right: we are perhaps on the brink of a real humanitarian catastrophe in Kosovo. Our choice is either to stand by as the blood and the refugees flow or to take on the aggressor with determination and with a will to stop the carnage. As to the number of troops potentially committed to the operation in Kosovo, the House may wish to note that the Government have decided to make HMS Splendid—the Royal Navy's first submarine to be equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles—available for operations in connection with the Kosovo crisis. That is a further measure of the Government's resolve.

It was good of the Secretary of State to give us that information, but his Department told the press before the weekend. So it was kind of him, but we knew already. Does the Secretary of State agree that, as a consequence of deploying about 8,000 British troops to Kosovo, it will be impossible for him to deal with the overstretch problem, which will inevitably worsen recruitment and retention?

First, my Department did not tell the press about HMS Splendid. A Pentagon spokesman inadvertently made that information available before I could tell the House. That was perfectly clear from all the newspaper stories about the issue. I intended to tell—and have told—the House of Commons before anyone in the press received confirmation of that story.

Secondly, soldier recruitment to the Army has increased by 17.6 per cent. compared with this time last year. Although retention levels are still disturbing, they are better than they were in any of the years of the Conservative Government.

In fact, an answer to a parliamentary question reveals that retention rates deteriorated in 1998–99 for the first time in several years. Another answer tells us that 86 per cent. of land command personnel are currently committed to operations or warned to deploy. Is not an inevitable consequence of this—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State questions that figure. However, information was provided that 55 per cent. of land command personnel are committed to operations and 31.3 per cent. are warned to deploy, which totals 86 per cent. As a consequence, is it not inevitable that tour intervals will get shorter, periods spent abroad will get longer, training will suffer and retention rates will get worse? If we are to commit 8,000 troops to Kosovo, is it not time to review the assumptions underlying the strategic defence review?

The assumptions underlying the strategic defence review have not been altered because they are global assumptions that will allow us to do less or more for specific periods. Although senior military commanders in the Ministry of Defence recognise the strain on individuals and the price that must be paid in short-term training, they are content that we can discharge our responsibilities without paying too heavy a price. I am conscious of overstrain, and I will be aware if it becomes a serious factor in training.

I visited our troops in Macedonia two weeks ago, and morale is high and training is going ahead. I hope that they will be there for a limited time, but while they are there they will be doing a job that can be done by few others in the world. They are proud of what they are doing and the country is proud of them.

Having been in Kosovo last week—I left on Friday—I must ask the Secretary of State whether, in the absence of a settlement, we have the option of walking away and saying that the situation is none of our business, or whether we are willing to consider the costs that would be involved in a military operation with our allies, opposed or unopposed, that would save tens of thousands of lives that, without us, would be lost.

I read the articles that were written by the hon. Gentleman when he came back from Kosovo. I have strong views about the situation there, and he makes good points about it. That is why my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spent so much time at Rambouillet bringing the two sides together and getting close to agreement. That is why, last week, the Kosovar Albanians signed up to the Rambouillet text and why the Yugoslav Serbs have been told that they, too, must sign up to it. There is no question of our walking away from a part of our continent that, if it goes up in flames, will burn many people far from the immediate surroundings. That is why we have put President Milosevic and those who make decisions in Belgrade on notice that, unless they heed the demands of the international community, swift and determined action will be taken.

Will the Secretary of State ensure that, if troops are sent into Kosovo, they will not have redundancy notices tucked into their top pockets—which is what happened to the Cheshires when they went into Bosnia?

My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. We are trying to increase the strength of the Regular Army because they have a job to do and, under the strategic defence review, we have reconfigured our forces to make sure that they can do it. Partly because of the revitalisation of our forces, which is thanks to the defence review, Army soldier recruitment has risen by 17.6 per cent. since the same time last year. I know that those who are in that part of the world are determined to make sure that the potential catastrophe is averted and that the majority of the people of Kosovo are given the chance to get on with their lives in the political framework that was so ably negotiated at Rambouillet and which the Kosovar Albanians have signed up to.

What progress his Department is making in acquiring strategic airlift capability. [75965]

We received bids at the end of January for competing aircraft to meet our requirements for both short and longer-term strategic airlift capability. MOD officials are now assessing those bids. We will announce the outcome to the House once decisions have been made.

I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that that was a lamentably complacent response to my question. Given that it is now several months since Ministers described the need for four Boeing C17s as "urgent", will the hon. Gentleman tell the House today when those aircraft will be in service with the RAF, or whether he envisages that the country will be forced into the ignominious position of having to lease old Russian Antonovs?

One wonders who the Government were before May 1997 and why the hon. Gentleman displays mock indignation on this issue. We are considering possible alternatives—C17 or its equivalent. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Antonov, among others, is being considered by potential industrial participants. We are conducting a proper evaluation to find out which fits our need and which would fulfil our longer-term requirements. A little less fake indignation and a little more examination of the facts would serve the hon. Gentleman well.

Can the Minister confirm that the delay in the lease of the C17s is because of problems with military exports from the United States? Is he now looking more favourably on the Airbus A400M option, which appeared at one time to be shelved? Can he not rule out at least some of the Antonov aircraft, which would be particularly ancient and really not equivalent to the C17s?

The B52 could be described as ancient, but it seems still to be a very effective aircraft in its particular field of operation. Our short-term requirement is for out-size airlift. We are also considering our longer-term requirement for major airlift. We are examining synchronisation between the two requirements and whatever degree of commonality is possible if that will provide the best mix. We are examining the best possible outcomes and we hope as a result to remedy the deficiencies in heavy lift, in the air and at sea, that we took over when we came to office.

How much the Government are currently spending on research into the illnesses of Gulf war veterans. [75966]

How much the Government are spending on research into the illnesses of Gulf war veterans. [75970]

The Ministry of Defence's research into Gulf veterans' illnesses currently comprises two major epidemiological studies, a neuromuscular symptoms study, an independent review of research literature, and a programme to investigate possible interactions between the medical counter-measures which were used during the 1990–91 Gulf conflict. So far, £1.9 million has been spent on these studies and we estimate that they will cost a further £4 million to complete.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. It is reassuring to hear of the money that is spent on research. I am sure that it is welcome to all the Gulf war veterans, including those to whom I spoke in my constituency, who still do not have a definite diagnosis of their illness, let alone any hope of a cure. Does my hon. Friend agree with the Royal British Legion that, for these veterans, time is of the essence if they are to benefit from the results of the research? Given the resources that are available to my hon. Friend, does he look to sharing information in the context of the results of research done in other countries, especially the United States?

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I much agree with the Royal British Legion's view that time is of the essence for the individuals who are suffering from illness which they believe they contracted in the Gulf. That is why the Government have increased the resources that are committed to research to try to get to the bottom of what happened, to try to ascertain the illness or illnesses that they have suffered from, the cause, how similar illnesses could be prevented, and what sort of treatment is appropriate.

We recognise that many people in the United States are suffering from similar illnesses. We want to enter into discussions with the US Government to determine how best we can combine our research resources.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. However, does he understand that Gulf war syndrome, if that is the right expression—it seems that there is a plurali—a plur—[Laughter.] It seems that there are lots of conditions. Does my hon. Friend understand that that is worrying generally, but particularly to those who are suffering? It is essential that the present level of research be continued so that a cause or causes are found. Will my hon. Friend confirm that, if the Government are found to be at fault, compensation will be paid?

If my hon. Friend had trouble with "plurality", he would have had even greater trouble with "epidemiological". I can assure him that we are doing everything we can to try to get to the bottom of what is wrong with people who are suffering from illnesses that were contracted in the Gulf, and that we shall commit any necessary resources—we have already committed three times more than the previous Government—to trying to find out what is wrong with personnel who served in the Gulf.

I think I am the only current Member who served in the armed forces in the Gulf, although I may be wrong. I welcome the Minister's remarks about investigating the causes of the illness. It is self-evident that some members of the armed forces have suffered severe illness, possibly from organophosphate poisoning, and they deserve swift compensation. Can the Minister tell us whether any evidence of a syndrome has yet emerged from the research in the United Kingdom or the United States?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that further question. It has not been possible to determine whether there is a specific illness called Gulf war syndrome or any other name. Much research has already been undertaken. Much research is currently being undertaken, and we await the results. We want any necessary additional research to be carried out, if possible, in conjunction with our allies in the United States. If, at the end of that—I should have mentioned this in response to the previous question—it is shown that there is an illness and that there was negligence, compensation will be paid in accordance with the normal procedures.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important that none of those research programmes, many of which were started when the previous Government were in power, should duplicate the work done in the United States of America? Does he agree that it will add greatly to the credibility of those programmes, which have been undertaken by distinguished scientists, if it is clearly seen that they do not overlap with any American studies?

Yes, I very much agree. As I said during the previous Defence Question Time, I went to Washington three weeks ago. I spoke to the Department of Defence, the Department of Veterans Affairs and the White House about the kind of research that was considered a priority. The Americans are coming back next Monday, I think, and I will have further discussions with White House officials about how we can co-ordinate the research. It is crucial that there should be no opportunity for one group of experts to argue against another group, simply because they come from different sides of the Atlantic. We must get the experts together to give us the best medical and scientific opinion, in the hope that we can resolve the outstanding problems.

What level of recruitment he expects for (i) regulars and (ii) reserves to (a) the Marines, (b) Special Air Service, and (c) RAMC over the next five years. [75967]

The recruiting targets for Royal Marines, Special Air Service, and the Royal Army Medical Corps are set to maintain current and known future staffing requirements, for both regular and reserve forces.

Soldiers and officers for the Regular SAS are recruited as required from among serving personnel.

The Regular Royal Marines recruiting targets for 1999–2000 are 1,155 other ranks and 38 officers, reducing to 800 other ranks and 38 officers in 2003–04.

The Regular Royal Army Medical Corps recruiting targets for 1999–2000 are 398 other ranks and 69 officers, rising to 625 other ranks and 78 officers in 2003–04. I am placing fuller tables of the targets for the Royal Marines and the Royal Army Medical Corps in the Library of the House.

The Royal Marine Reserve adjusts its recruitment to maintain a trained strength of 592 reservists.

Following the strategic defence review, the Reserve Royal Army Medical Corps is to increase by more than 2,000 personnel, and we aim to recruit those additional reserve personnel as soon as possible.

I am grateful for a full and helpful reply. I believe that we are still a little below establishment in each of those forces. Can we increase the number of women and of black and Asian recruits? Will the Minister reflect on the benefit of trying to pull from the reserves in the Marines, the RAMC Corps and the SAS into the regulars? There is a link, but the numbers going from the reserves to become full-time service personnel are still relatively small. All the evidence and anecdotes that I hear suggest that there is potential there for further recruitment.

I agree that it is important to tap into all the potential resources for recruitment to our armed forces. The reserves are a key area for that, as are the cadets. That is why the Government put so much emphasis on building up the resources and the capabilities of the cadets.

The hon. Gentleman also identified two important areas of recruitment. Although women are obviously not so important in respect of the Royal Marines, they are important in the other parts of the armed services and we must tap into such a major section of the population. Female recruitment has been improving significantly, especially for officers. About one in five such recruits are women and not many organisations in this country could claim that one in five of their middle management are women. It is a tribute to our armed forces that they have been able to achieve that.

It is also important that we recruit from the widest base of the population. So many people in the black and Asian communities would offer so much to our armed forces if they could be convinced that they had a first-choice career there. It is our aim to make sure that that is the case.

Is not the crucial test, particularly for the commando course of the Royal Marines and the selection course for the Special Air Service Regiment, whether people going through those courses have the mental and physical toughness to pass and to be fully operational thereafter? On the RAMC, do not the needs of the wounded and the sick transcend the racial divides in our society: therefore, should we not forget any notion of ethnic quotas for any arm of the armed forces and judge applicants only on their ability to do the job?

There is no question of quotas in our armed forces and no question of anyone joining our armed forces who does not have the qualifications—whether mental agility or toughness—to join. If we are to fulfil our recruitment targets, we have to make sure that an awful lot of people with mental agility and toughness who currently are not taking the opportunity to join our armed forces get that opportunity.

What impact his review of the Territorial Army has had on recruiting and retention levels. [75968]

As we expected, the numbers leaving the TA have risen since we announced the restructuring in mid-November and there has been a small decrease in those joining, by comparison with the previous year. None the less, we fully anticipate that many new young people will take up the many opportunities that there are to serve in the TA, and we launched a new TA recruitment campaign last month to make those opportunities widely known.

I am sure that the Minister acknowledges that the TA is an important area of recruitment for regulars, as has been said. Does he not expect some commensurate fall in recruitment from the TA as numbers fall by 12,800? Is he concerned about the infantry, where the TA is being cut in particular and where there is the biggest under-recruitment in the Regular Army.

No, I do not expect that. With the restructuring of the TA so that it is in the kind of shape to be able better and more effectively to reinforce the Regular Army, there will be more people in the TA who have those qualifications and that background. It will be more attractive to them to join our Regular Army.

There is still substantial support for the TA from about 6,000 companies. The relevant company in Wakefield is still as interested in recruiting and retaining members of the TA, and it is supported by local organisations. I commend my hon. Friend for the campaign that his Department is organising. Will he continue to make sure that local companies, such as mine in Wakefield, are retained to strength?

I am very grateful for my hon. Friend's support, and he makes an important point about the TA. The restructuring is not only about taking people from companies and using them in our armed forces; it is about giving people better skills, better qualifications and more experience while they are in the TA so that they return to their normal civilian employment with greater aptitude—and, often, greater commitment—which is why so many employers welcome the opportunity for their staff to serve in the TA.

The Minister has expressed disappointment about recruitment and retention in the Territorial Army. Does he not think that part of the problem of retention is due to the restructuring of the TA, which now constitutes a major disincentive? Following the amalgamation of the 10th and 4th Battalions Parachute Regiment, an horrendous organisation will spread between Glasgow and London. What possible motivation is there for young men and women to join such an organisation, or to remain in it? Some of those valuable men and women are probably to be deployed in Kosovo.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, parachute units are already spread among a number of geographical locations. Nor do I accept that the restructuring of the TA has led to greater retention difficulties. On the contrary, I believe that, following the restructuring, people will be more inclined to join, feeling that they can make a real contribution to the reinforcement of the Regular Army, and to stay to make that contribution. They will eventually return to civilian life with better qualifications, better able to contribute in civilian employment.

What progress has been made towards the consolidation of the European defence industry. [75973]

Governments in Europe are making good progress in their work to facilitate defence industrial restructuring, as set out in the letter of intent signed by the Defence Ministers of France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom on 6 July 1998. Industry in Europe is responding to the initiative with its own commercial developments, most recently last week's announcement by GKN and Finmeccanica of a merger between Westland Helicopters and Agusta.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that European consolidation can be enhanced if we speedily settle the requirements of the seven European air forces, including our own—specifically with regard to the A400M, formerly described as the future large aircraft? Is it the case that some 288 airframes are required by 2006? We had hoped for an order for 50 future large aircraft from the Ministry. My constituents—3,700 of them—are quite good at making wings for Airbus.

Few Members are as assiduous as my hon. Friend in promoting their constituents' interests. I pay tribute to those who make some of the best wings in the world for Airbus. There is no doubt that Airbus Industrie has been a huge commercial success, and its bid for the future large aircraft will deserve a lot of attention.

The Secretary of State has spoken of the importance of the defence industry. Does he accept that many companies have grown over the past 20 years especially because of their defence links? Does he recognise the enormous success of Admiral, an information technology company in my constituency—I visited it only this morning—which, having been founded by just two people in 1979, now has nearly 2,500 employees worldwide, and five offices in the constituency? It is now the 190th most successful company in the FTSE 250, and is heavily involved in Ministry of Defence work.

This morning, representatives of the company told me that they wanted a successful future for the symbols of British defence. To that end, will the Secretary of State rule out any prospect of the conversion and ruining of the original, listed staff college buildings in Camberley, immediately opposite Admiral's headquarters, which I saw this morning and which his officials have been threatening to convert to luxury flats, ignoring the fact that there is a war memorial in that historic listed building?

The hon. Gentleman had a good try with his bid for attention for his constituents, but he still came in second behind my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones).

I recently met the chairman of Admiral, and I know that the company's record is very good. I am sure that the chairman will be delighted to read the tribute in Hansard that may well have been intended by the hon. Gentleman.

We have not yet come to a decision on the future of the fine buildings at Camberley, but it is something that I feel strongly about. The hon. Gentleman may be assured that we have not lost sight of the issue.

As my right hon. Friend is aware, there is considerable interest in the House in arms exports, particularly those to countries with bad human rights records. When are we to get the annual report on arms exports, so that we can see precisely what licences have been granted for such exports? I realise that my right hon. Friend's Department is not the only one responsible—three other Departments are involved—but the report is now one year overdue. Why has there been a delay? When the report is released, will a statement be made in the Chamber, so that we may question Ministers precisely on it.

On the issue of when, my answer is soon. On the question of delay, it has arisen in order that we get all the statistics right. Whether there will be a statement on the report depends on my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, whose Department has responsibility for it.

Does the Secretary of State agree that, to have a European defence policy, we must have an integrated European defence industry? Does he also agree that that European defence industry integration must include the activities of illegitimate arms dealers in Europe? Will he assure the House that the Government will support the German Government's proposals to control arms brokers in Europe?

I welcome the hon. Lady to the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench team in the absence of her two colleagues, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) and the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), one of whom wrote to me in advance and whose reason for being absent is perfectly understandable.

I am not entirely certain what question the hon. Lady is asking. She calls for an integrated defence industry—the Government are working towards further consolidation in that sector, but, clearly, it must be driven by the industry itself. If I got her question right, I believe that she said that integrated defence industry is to include illegitimate arms dealers. We have absolutely no intention of including the activities of such dealers in that industry. If they are illegitimate, by definition, they have no place in our future consolidation or rationalisation of the industry.

I join my right hon. Friend in welcoming the latest example of European defence consolidation, namely, the merger of GKN-Westland and Italy's Agusta, both highly successful industries in their own right. Does he agree that further consolidation of European defence industries is essential if they are to be efficient and competitive and to have a future role to play? Does he believe that progress is being made throughout Europe in achieving that consolidation and speeding it up?

My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on about the necessity for consolidation and about the fact that, at present, European industries lack the scale to be globally competitive. That must be a clear priority for all those who are employed in the industry and who depend on it. I assure her that we will continue to put in the maximum effort to ensure that the companies recognise that their salvation and, indeed, the industry's survival depend on further moves towards consolidation being made.

What assessment he has made of requirements for new aircraft to equip the joint carrier—borne air group. [75974]

The new aircraft to equip the joint carrier-borne air group is known as the future carrier-borne aircraft. No decision has yet been made on the choice of aircraft to meet that requirement. A strong contender is a variant of the United States joint strike fighter. We are participating in the concept demonstration phase for that aircraft. We are also assessing a number of other options, including a navalised Eurofighter, Rafale-M, F18 and an advanced Harrier variant.

I thank the Minister for that reply, but will he bear it in mind that the acquisition of aircraft with short take-off and vertical landing capabilities could considerably reduce the capital cost of the two aircraft carriers that the Government have promised to order, because such aircraft do not require the long flight-decks needed by conventional aircraft? Does he see an opening for the Harrier, with its STOVL capabilities, in a sale to the French—whose new aircraft carrier, the Charles de Gaulle, was at sea undergoing trials when it was discovered that her flight-deck was too short for conventional French aircraft to take off from?

I would just correct the hon. Gentleman, who said that the Government have promised the aircraft carriers. We are accomplishing the stages, however, exactly on the time scale that we predicted, and I am sure that he will welcome that. Moreover, as I said in my answer, an advanced Harrier variant was one of the options being considered. He will understand the need to evaluate all the technical options, as those carriers will be considerably larger and much more capable than the current ones. We have to have consider all the options—including, as I said, not only the joint strike fighter, but others.

What targets the UK's Trident submarine missiles are aimed at. [75975]

As I have made it clear before, our Trident missiles are de-targeted.

If the missiles are not targeted at anyone, will the Secretary of State explain what they are for? Why is it necessary to spend billions of pounds on building and maintaining a nuclear submarine fleet when there is no enemy against which to target it, and when launching Trident would cause a global explosion and the extermination of most of the human race? Furthermore, many people think that the whole issue of nuclear weapons is fundamentally immoral and—within the terms of the International Court of Justice judgment of two years ago—illegal. Is it not time that we decommissioned them, took them out of service and cancelled the whole programme?

My hon. Friend is perfectly entitled to take that point of view, but should always remember that he fought the previous general election on retaining Trident. A pledge to do so was in both the general election manifesto and the draft manifesto, which was endorsed by 95 per cent. of the Labour party. Insurance is the answer to his simple question about why we need the missiles—which, today, are de-targeted. In the future, neither we nor anyone else can tell what dangers will exist in an increasingly unstable world. That is why we have those missiles. My hon. Friend also says that a growing opinion holds that nuclear arms should be done away with and that they are illegal. I tell him that, at the weekend, in Newcastle, I attended a Labour party policy forum, at which only one question about nuclear weapons was asked. The party member said that we had not got enough of them, and that one submarine on patrol was not enough. No one demurred.

Will the Secretary of State put my mind at rest? Is the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) a lone voice in the wilderness, or does the Labour party in government still insist on its campaign for nuclear disarmament?

The hon. Lady clearly prepared that question in advance. She was therefore unaware of what I would say, and did not bother listening to my answer. The Labour party fought the general election on the basis that we would keep Trident. We are committed also to further reductions and to moving towards a world without nuclear weapons. We are fulfilling both those objectives in what we have said and in the proposals that we have made in the strategic defence review.

If he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards further European defence co-operation. [75976]

Our aim is to ensure a strong common foreign and security policy, so that Europe can speak with authority and act with decisiveness in international affairs. To achieve that, we need to provide the tools to allow the European Union nations to make decisions collectively on military matters, including the political control and strategic direction of Europe-led military operations. We also want more effective European military capability so that we are able, when necessary, to back up our policies with military action, both for Europe-led military operations and as a means of strengthening NATO.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, does he agree that, just as there is a need for greater co-operation in Europe, there is a need for greater co-operation in our own domestic market? Does he recognise that, with a contracting and diminishing United Kingdom defence sector, interdependence between the Ministry of Defence's procurement strategy and the private sector is all the greater? Does he share my concern that companies with healthy long-term order books, and the jobs that underpin them, are at risk when they have no short-term work? Will he therefore consider the benefits of better and closer integration between the armed forces' procurement strategies and the needs of private contractors in order to predict their business, and thereby to underpin their capacity and the jobs that they provide?

My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. That is precisely why the Government have evolved a close partnership with the industry in this country. I do not think that I would be contradicted in the industry if I said that the co-operation between us in dovetailing our requirements and its demands is at an historically high level. My responsibility is to ensure that the budget that I have is spent in the most cost-effective way, but I am always conscious of the fact that we have a big industry with a huge export potential and a great record at the forefront of our manufacturing cutting edge. We cannot neglect our industrial responsibilities either.

When deciding on European defence and security co-operation issues, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that there are six European NATO countries that are not members of the European Union and that five of the 15 European Union countries are not members of NATO? Does that not lead to the inescapable conclusion that the Western European Union should take the initiatives on such matters, rather than the European Union?

What matters is that NATO's integrity and strength remain undiminished. We in Europe should have the political will and the determination to act when it is in our interests. It is also vital that we have the military capability to act when we come to policy decisions. There are plenty of ways to design and redesign the security architecture of Europe. There are wiring diagrams by the thousand, but a wiring diagram cannot be sent to a crisis. That is where we have to put our principal efforts and energies. The Western European Union has shown how we can weld together all the nations that are involved in that common endeavour, but we need to concentrate much more on the political will and the military capabilities and allow institutional relationships to be developed thereafter.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that defence co-operation in the European Union will benefit our relationship with the United States? With a more grown-up relationship, the European Union would be able to deal with certain difficulties without being compelled to go to the United States for assistance. That would be better and more sensible.

My hon. Friend makes a strong point. Europe can and should do more. In many ways, that will strengthen the alliance. The European security and defence identity inside NATO was developed at the 1995 NATO summit, when the Secretary of State for Defence was one Michael Portillo. The development of the European capability inside NATO was not dreamed up by this Government, but the process of making that capability real, strengthening NATO and giving Europe more control over its destiny has come to fruition only since my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister launched that major and significant initiative.

The Secretary of State is in danger of confusing me. At one moment, he is trying to downplay the significance of the development, talking about it as merely wiring diagrams, but he told the Select Committee on Defence that the importance of the St. Malo agreement could not be understated. If I understand it correctly, it represents the most fundamental shift in British defence policy for decades. Bringing defence policy within the remit of the European Union would change the policy that informed the Government's approach to the treaty of Amsterdam. Will the Secretary of State confirm that that is an enormously significant change for British defence policy? Why were we not able even to get the French to join the integrated administrative structure of NATO as part of the St. Malo deal? That would be a small price for them to pay for a fundamental change in British policy.

There is a danger that I am misleading the hon. Gentleman, but that does not seem to be too difficult. Let me spell it out in simple terms for him.

The concept of a European defence identity inside the European Union was not born in the Amsterdam treaty; it came into existence in the Maastricht treaty, signed by the previous Government. We are moving towards a European security and defence identity with the office of high representative, and all the responsibilities that go along with that for establishing the policy and making sure that that policy can be put into practice.

The St. Malo declaration—which brought France and the United Kingdom much closer together in terms of being able to do things in Europe, rather than talk about them—was backed by a practical example, the extraction force based in Macedonia to relieve the Kosovo verification force, had it got into trouble. That force is French led, and has double the number of French to British troops; however, the French Government decided to put it under the command and control of the NATO commander.

What discussions he has had with English Heritage regarding that body's support for bell towers of redundant churches. [75998]

Redundant churches are the responsibility of the relevant diocese pending a decision on their future. They then become the responsibility of the new owner if an alternative use is agreed, or the Churches Conservation Trust, if they are to be preserved by that body. It follows from this that we have had no discussions with English Heritage.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a recent newspaper report stated that English Heritage was placing such strict criteria on the repair of bell towers that some—redundant or otherwise—would not be able to ring in the millennium because the repairs would cost too much? I know from my church in Leicestershire that English Heritage is so strict as to be absurd. English Heritage does a good job, but will he and the commissioners ensure that the merits of a building are not judged at such an absurd level that the building can no longer operate in the way intended?

The Church does not wish to prevent anyone from ringing their church bells for the millennium, and English Heritage has regular meetings with the Central Council of Church Bell Ringers to discuss matters such as those raised by the hon. Gentleman.

I could not let this opportunity pass without referring to the bell ringing exercise in Aston, Birmingham yesterday, during a football match at Aston Villa—not too far from your constituency, Madam Speaker. We are always happy to announce that more people attend church services over the weekend than attend football matches. We like church bells to be rung, whether from redundant churches or otherwise.

What plans they have to use opportunities afforded by the millennium to increase the income of the Church. [76000]

As we move into the new millennium, the Church Commissioners will continue to manage the endowment funds entrusted to them to maximise their support for the Church's ministry over the long term. Any initiative to increase the income of the Church of England as a whole would be the responsibility of the recently created Archbishops Council.

Could the hon. Gentleman talk to the Church Commissioners and to the Archbishops Council to see if they would look at three ways of bringing more money in to the Church? First, those of us who go—particularly those who are well off—could be encouraged to pay a tithe from their income, as people used to do. Secondly, those who do not normally go to church could be invited to go at least once next year, because many who do not go still value it hugely. Thirdly, those who do not want to go to worship could be encouraged at least to visit the physical church in this country, and possibly contribute to its work—which, again, such people often value, even if they do not want to be members.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his suggestions, and I never miss an opportunity of talking to the two archbishops. It is one of my little privileges in life to go to Lambeth palace and, when I next do so, I will raise those three matters. The Church Commissioners' balance sheet shows that there are £3.5 billion of assets, and a press conference to be held shortly to announce our results for the financial year will be encouraging to the hon. Gentleman.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many people think that there is a spiritual lack in society? People of all faiths think that the spiritual dimension of the millennium should be recognised and that the Church Commissioners have a unique opportunity to put in place long-term resources to work for the wider community.

The Church is celebrating the millennium in many ways: with candles, with the millennium resolution and with the presence of the spirit zone in the dome at Greenwich. The Church and others greatly regret the fact that insufficient publicity is given to those measures. The Church of England remains the fifth largest Church in the world, and we have a huge membership in many forms and varieties. Propagating the Christian message in the millennium year will encourage people to come to worship and will renew and enhance our Christian spirit.

What proposals he has to enlarge the ethical element in the commissioners' portfolio. [76001]

The Church Commissioners and their investment managers are advised by the ethical investment working group on ethical issues that concern the central bodies of the Church of England. The portfolio will reflect those concerns, which means that, at the moment, about 10 per cent. of the United Kingdom stock market is excluded.

I am grateful for that reply, as far as it went, but it did not answer the question whether the commissioners propose to enlarge their ethical investment. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that some of the new threats to the world come from companies that are indifferent to the environmental effects of their activities? Could not the commissioners, who were trail-blazers in ethical investment as far back as 1948, consider excluding from their portfolio companies that failed to support the multilateral agreement on investment, which was proposed last year?

The Church in its investments is not indifferent to those who are unfriendly to the environment. We note, for example, that the commissioners have shares in Shell, which very much regrets the pollution of the Manchester ship canal with refined oil from the Stanlow manufacturing complex in Ellesmere Port. The company has given an assurance that it will take the measures necessary to ensure that such an incident never happens again. The commissioners are fully advised on ethical investment through the working group. They continue to keep the matter under review and will take into account the suggestions made by my hon. Friend.

In view of its Government's adventurist foreign policy and disregard for human rights at home, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the ethical element in the Church Commissioners' investment portfolio would not be increased if they decided to invest in Zimbabwe?

The commissioners have a strong ethical investment policy. We certainly take the view, in relation to our investment in companies in this country, that nations have a right to defend themselves and to engage in peacekeeping initiatives. The ethical investment working group believes in the legitimacy of an indigenous defence industry supplying equipment under Government licence. We are bound by the criteria set by the working group, and we will seek to advance that policy if that is in the interests of the Church.

What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the current level of financial support for the parochial ministry to prevent any long-term interregnums in clerical living. [76002]

The commissioners put £20 million a year into parochial ministry support. That amount was agreed after detailed discussion with dioceses. A guaranteed annuity is payable for the overwhelming majority of benefices when the incumbent is present. Long interregnums are not encouraged, but their length can be affected by various factors, including the availability of a suitable incumbent.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if the support available to the parochial ministry is agreed to be adequate to avoid long interregnums, it is undesirable for such interregnums to occur as an instrument of Church policy? I hope that, through the medium of this question, the Church authorities will take that view and seek to implement it.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The Church of England does not generally encourage long interregnums. After nine months, the right of patronage and the legal rights of parochial church council representatives pass to the archbishop of the province, who then has nomination rights.

What representations the Church Commissioners have made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the exemption from VAT of charges for building repair works and security measures for redundant churches. [76003]

[Interruption.] I am sorry, Madam Speaker, I lost my place. The commissioners were co-signatories to a submission in November 1997 on behalf of the Church of England's national bodies to the Government's review of the taxation of charities which highlighted as a particular concern the VAT treatment of works to church buildings.

I am tempted to say:

"seek, and ye shall find".

Through my hon. Friend, may I request the Church Commissioners to reinvigorate their campaign and join other charitable organisations to ensure that the Government's review of the regulation of charitable and Church bodies results in all repairs on community buildings and churches being zero-rated for VAT?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his biblical advice. VAT on repairs to listed churches and cathedrals is estimated to have totalled about £16 million in 1993, of which the Church of England paid about £12 million. The question of VAT on church repairs has been raised ever since the introduction of VAT more than 25 years ago and it has met with a negative response from every Administration. I shall end with a biblical quotation:

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."

Perhaps my hon. Friend's point will be heard.