1. What recent assessment he has made of Iranian military involvement in attacks on British forces overseas. (219807)

Elements of the Iranian regime provide munitions and training to Shi’a militia in Iraq and arms and funding to the Taliban in Afghanistan. In addition, they fund and assist armed groups in the Lebanon and in the occupied Palestinian territories. That not only poses a threat to British forces serving in operations but destabilises the security of the region. Iran can either act responsibly, cease support for terrorism and play a constructive role in Iraq or Afghanistan or face the consequences of not doing so—and it must be clear that that will mean increasing isolation.

It appears that Iranian involvement in the insurgency in Iraq is, thankfully, diminishing after the recent effort of Iraqi forces supported by US ground troops, but has the Secretary of State seen any evidence of a change in tactics by Tehran and an increase in Iranian involvement in attacks on NATO forces in Afghanistan?

There is no evidence of such a change having taken place. The hon. Gentleman is right to recall that there has been a decrease in Iran’s apparent interference in Iraq’s internal affairs, which is a consequence of a number of things, including the effectiveness of Iraqi security forces against those agents and others involved in activity in southern Iraq and the growing strength of the Iraqi Government and their direct involvement with the Iranians, helping to change their behaviour. We of course keep the situation in Afghanistan under constant review, but there is no evidence of increasing interference.

Is my right hon. Friend completely satisfied that British naval forces carrying out legitimate boarding operations within the Gulf are prepared for aggressive attacks by Iranian forces?

I think that my hon. Friend might have had an opportunity to ask that question directly when members of the Select Committee recently visited that part of the world and spoke to our forces there. I am sure that the answer he would have received is that steps put in place significantly to increase the protection of our sailors in that part of the Gulf—after the regrettable incident when sailors were taken captive—are proving increasingly effective.

What assessment does the Secretary of State make of the linkage between Iranian military and Iraqi militia groups, which have been trained—by the allied forces, of course—armed and put on the street to help the security forces?

There were at one stage some concerns that militia had infiltrated Iraqi security forces. The hon. Gentleman and others will know that when General Mohan was in charge of troops in Basra, steps were taken to ensure that the majority of recruits to the 14th division, which grew out of the 10th division of the Iraqi army, did not come from the Basra area. The fact that the troops could not be intimidated may well account for the dramatic effect of the deployment of the 14th division to Basra.

2. What recent assessment he has made of the availability of helicopters for deployment in Afghanistan and Iraq. (219808)

7. If he will increase the number of helicopters available for the use of UK troops in Afghanistan. (219813)

In my written statement on 20 May, I set out in great detail the considerable efforts we are making on this issue. We have increased helicopter flying hours in Afghanistan by over a third since March last year, including uplifts to Chinook and Apache hours; we have deployed upgraded Sea King helicopters there as well, and we are converting eight Chinook helicopters to a support role. The Merlin helicopter is deployed to Iraq; the six additional Merlin aircraft that we procured from Denmark will augment our fleet by 25 per cent.

Helicopters are essential for our hugely important operations in Afghanistan, and there is a shortage of them. I recognise that some eight Chinooks, six Danish Merlins and the upgraded Sea Kings with Carson blades are on track to Afghanistan, but has the Ministry of Defence indicated to any of our armed services its willingness to procure light helicopters on their behalf? If so, what response has it had?

The hon. Gentleman will know that over and above the specific steps that we are taking in this coalition operation, others among our allies are taking steps. For completeness, the House should know that to support operations in Afghanistan, the Canadians—I spoke to their Defence Minister recently—have bought six additional Chinooks and eight Griffin helicopters. In the interim, while fitting out those Chinooks for deployment, they are leasing eight Mi-17s. Therefore, the number of frames, and consequently the hours available, will be subject to a significant uplift in Afghanistan.

The hon. Gentleman is right that light helicopters play an important operational role, particularly for surveillance purposes, although they can be used for other purposes. The helicopter that we currently use is known as the Lynx helicopter, and he will know that that does not perform most efficiently in the environment of Afghanistan. We look to our allies for such support, but for that surveillance role we also use the heavier Sea King helicopter, which, when rebladed, performs well in that environment.

Will the Secretary of State tell the House what lessons the Government have learned from their decision in 2004 to cut £1.4 billion from the helicopter budget, so that Parliament is never again asked to send British troops into combat without the necessary helicopter support? Will the situation get better across all three services over the next three years?

I am pleased to tell the House that over the next 10 years the Ministry of Defence intends to invest some £6 billion to replace and enhance our helicopters. Over the same period, we will also try to reduce the maintenance burden. That is a significant investment, which addresses directly the hon. Gentleman’s point.

In 2004, the Public Accounts Committee described the acquisition of the eight Chinook mark 3 helicopters for £259 million as one of the worst examples of equipment procurement it had ever seen. Since then, we have seen the reversion project and the night enhancement package, which will push the total cost well above £500 million. Will the Secretary of State tell us what lessons have been learned from the whole saga? When will we see the eight Chinook mark 3 helicopters fully operational in Afghanistan and elsewhere?

The work done on the Chinook helicopters is on track and on budget. The work having been completed, it is intended that the first helicopter will be released early in 2009, and the rest will become available progressively thereafter. They will enhance our existing fleet of Chinook helicopters, and my written statement to the House on 20 May set out the detail of how we intend to deploy them.

My hon. Friend asks what lessons have been learned. The lesson that should be learned is not to overcomplicate our procurement. We did not order the helicopters, but when they were delivered they were of such complexity that they could not be certificated as safe to fly under the then regulations. After valiant attempts to overcome that, when I became Secretary of State I took the decision that they would be better converted to mark 2 Chinooks. That was the right decision, as subsequent reports have confirmed.

Given the shortage of helicopters in Afghanistan, does the Secretary of State think that it was wise to award a £1 billion contract to build the Future Lynx helicopters at twice the cost of the alternatives—and they will not be ready for years—and without a full competitive tender process?

I was not involved in the detail of the awarding of that contract, so I am not in a position to respond to him on the detail of the negotiations in that regard. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) mentioned the importance of light helicopters in the battlefield, and the answer lies in our need for proper surveillance of battlefield circumstances. As in every aspect of the equipment that we use, our experience in the battlefield environment teaches us all sorts of lessons, and we have learned a lot in Afghanistan, particularly about the use of other forms of intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance. The challenges increase as the technology improves.

I thank the Secretary of State for meeting me two weeks ago to discuss the Future Lynx order. He will be aware of the concern of many of my constituents about the media speculation surrounding the order. In the light of that, will he be in a position to give a clear green light to the order, which was signed two years ago, before the August holiday period begins?

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman. I understand his constituency interest in the matter, as well as his broader interest. As he knows, the affordability of our forward programme is being examined in the context of equipment. On many other occasions at the Dispatch Box I have turned down invitations to salami-slice every element, and I do not intend to do otherwise today. When I am ready to make any announcements, I will make them.

Has the right hon. Gentleman given any thought to the substitution of civilian helicopters to carry out conventional logistics tasks, so that more military helicopters can be freed up to go to Afghanistan?

I have done just that. As I believe the hon. Gentleman knows, we have entered into a contract in Afghanistan with a civilian supplier. As a result we are on track to move some 300 metric tonnes of supplies around Afghanistan, thus freeing up Chinook time, and time for the necessary deployment of attack helicopters to support the Chinooks. The arrangement has been very successful, and I am sure that we can build on it.

Given the shortage of military helicopters, why have the Government decided to withdraw the Gazelle helicopter from service some nine years before its planned out-of-service date in 2018? According to answers that the Secretary of State has given me within the past few months, it has clearly proved the most reliable of all our military helicopters. In view of the essential part that it plays in our national security strategy, is there not a danger that more pressure will be put on the helicopters that we need in Afghanistan and Iraq—although the Gazelle has not been used in Iraq since the early days? Will not its withdrawal leave a gap in our helicopter capacity, and how will the Secretary of State fill that gap without putting more pressure on our operations in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Thankfully, the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s lengthy question is quite short. According to military advice, which I have accepted, the Gazelle is not deployable in either of those theatres.

I never said it was.

The fact that we cannot deploy it explains why it would not address our shortage in those theatres.

The Lynx helicopters that are in service with the Army and the Royal Navy are pretty well at the end of their viable lives, much like the Prime Minister’s own political position. When will the Prime Minister note the anger of people such as Lieutenant-Colonel Stuart Tootal, who recently resigned from the Army after commanding the Paras in Helmand? When will the Prime Minister stop dithering, and authorise the Secretary of State to make a decision on the 70 Future Lynx aircraft which could make a real difference to our hard-pressed troops? Will the Secretary of State confirm that if they are not ordered, he will find himself with 150 Army helicopters going out of service in 2012 and nothing with which to replace them? What will he say to people who are trying to take up the role vacated by Stuart Tootal?

I come to the Dispatch Box every week in the hope that the jokes will get better, but they do not improve.

The hon. Gentleman has raised an important issue: how can we provide the level of surveillance that we will need for the operational environment in the future? I have already said that helicopters have a role to play, but there are other ways of providing that surveillance, of which the hon. Gentleman is aware. Indeed, we have discussed them before.

I heard Lieutenant-Colonel Tootal speaking on the radio this morning, and read with care the interview with him that was published over the weekend. He was deployed in Afghanistan and performed a very professional and worthwhile job there with 3 Para, which he commanded. They were very brave, and had a significant effect on the Taliban. However, as Lieutenant-Colonel Tootal was the first to recognise this morning, that was in 2006. There has been considerable investment since then, particularly in helicopters. Lieutenant-Colonel Tootal recognised that; it is a pity that the hon. Gentleman does not.

3. What progress is being made on the defence technical academy, St. Athan; and if he will make a statement. (219809)

The Department continues to work constructively with the Metrix consortium on a range of issues on defence training review package 1 to achieve an affordable, value-for-money, acceptable and deliverable project. Negotiations with Metrix are continuing and both parties are working hard to drive down costs and obtain maximum value for money for the taxpayer.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he take this opportunity to pay tribute to the integrated project team, Metrix and the Welsh Assembly Government for the way in which they are progressing this £12 billion private finance initiative, and especially their involvement of the local community in the planning and design stage, which has already resulted in a number of major improvements? Does he agree that, with a project of the scale, complexity and importance to the armed forces of this technical academy, it is important that we get it right and do not rush it?

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. As part of the planning process, we and Metrix are committed to an ongoing programme of consultation with the local community in Wales. We have involved the community in the redevelopment of St. Athan. That is a priority, and local comments will have a direct impact on how the details of any plans evolve. Public consultation exhibitions will take place—and, as my hon. Friend is aware, some are taking place at present.

But while it is important not to rush it, as the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith) says, the defence training review does seem to be taking longer to come to signature than everybody had thought. In Bordon in my constituency, this is a very important matter because the regeneration of the town depends on everybody having a clear idea of the Ministry of Defence’s intentions. Are there any problems with the sale of MOD land that we need to be aware of? What is going on?

The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that this is taking longer than is ideal. The financial appraisals have thrown up some difficult issues, and we are working them through with a view to taking a decision before the end of the year.

The Minister will know that there is a warm welcome for this project not only in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith), but across the whole of south Wales. There are people in my constituency who formerly worked at St. Athan and who are looking forward to the prospect of working there again in the near future, and many of them have important skills. Will the Minister confirm that none of the delay that has so far occurred has been because any of the services is reluctant to work with the other services, because where all the services work together in providing training they can significantly add value?

The St. Athan proposal added significant value to training in the whole area that was covered by package 1, and that was why it was considered to be value for money. That is not the reason for any hold-up. We are getting total co-operation from within the services, and also from the local community in Wales. There are affordability issues, however, which we are trying to work through with Metrix. That has caused some delay, but we are still doing our best to bring this to a good conclusion.

This project was announced with considerable fanfare in the run-up to the Assembly elections, but, 18 months on, there is still no signed contract. We already have one empty aircraft hangar in the area that the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith) serves as a result of a previous MOD U-turn. Does the Minister understand that there is fear in the community that the Government may be backtracking on the scale of the project, and can he reassure it that there is no truth in that?

All I will say to the hon. Gentleman is that he and his nationalist colleagues ought to reflect upon the size of the defence training capability in Scotland and Wales were they to get their way and form Governments in either of those places.

There are obviously serious difficulties with package 1, and it is clear that package 2 will never get off the ground. Does that not challenge the financial viability of the whole scheme, and has the Minister considered looking again at some of the investment the MOD has already made in my constituency at Blandford in the Defence College of Communications and Information Systems—more than £100 million over the past eight years—and at not sticking with the original defence training review plan, which was to locate communications and information systems training at Blandford?

We have announced a change in policy on package 2. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the synergies and, thus, the advantages in bringing people together, in the package 2 area were never as strong as those in package 1, so we are examining alternative solutions in those areas. Package 1 remains the best way of enhancing defence training, and we are committed to working through these problems and trying to deliver the proposal for St. Athan.

4. What recent changes have been made to the telephone package offered to troops serving overseas. (219810)

Personnel serving on eligible operations for two months or more are entitled to 30 minutes of free telephone time per week to any location worldwide, including mobile telephones. Earlier this month, we increased the allowance for personnel deployed for nine months to one hour, and personnel deployed on 12-month tours are entitled to two hours per week. We have also rationalised charges for additional call time to a flat rate of 11p per minute.

I thank my hon. Friend for that very positive response and for the allowance increases that have been announced. He will be aware of their importance, not only to the troops, but to their families and friends back here in the United Kingdom. May I encourage him to assure us that he will continue to keep this matter under review? He will be aware of the importance of communication, be it postal or telephone, to the troops and their families and friends, so may I suggest that at some future point he could be even more generous than he has been?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course, we always keep these things under review. Whenever I visit Iraq or Afghanistan, I ensure that I talk to service personnel about the welfare package to get their views, and I do the same when I see families back in the UK and elsewhere.

May I give credit where it is due to the communications teams in Her Majesty’s forces, especially the Army, for the substantial improvement in the welfare package, particularly on communication with families? I used to receive regular complaints from my constituents about that, but I have not received any such complaint for a long time. Credit should be given for the way in which free e-mails are available—free webcams are usually available too—for the fantastic job that the British Forces Broadcasting Service is doing and for the fact that newspapers are often available in the major centres in Iraq and Afghanistan within 24 hours of their publication in London.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Nevertheless, some constituents serving in the armed forces—[Interruption.] I shall have to put this one slightly differently. Some constituents, including some of mine, who are serving in Helmand province complain that when they have tried to use the telephone helpline to find out about problems accessing their wages—money to which they are entitled—they have been told that that time ought to come out of their time for telephoning relatives. Does the Minister agree that anyone who has a legitimate complaint to the forces helpline that deals with wages should be able to access that without it cutting into other telephone time?

We are working very hard to ensure that our armed forces personnel access such services. We are aware of some of the difficulties—I assume that the hon. Gentleman is talking about the Joint Personnel Administration—and we keep them under review. As I have said, we are making improvements all the time.

5. What steps he is taking to improve recruitment, retention and morale within the armed forces. (219811)

6. What recent representations he has received on levels of recruitment and retention in the armed forces. (219812)

The Ministry of Defence receives many representations from Members of this House and elsewhere on the important subjects of recruitment, retention and morale in the armed forces. Last week we published the service personnel Command Paper, which is an unprecedented attempt to remove the disadvantage associated with service life and complements a raft of previous initiatives, such as enhancements to the deployed welfare package, and retention and commitment bonuses.

The Minister will recognise that the morale, professionalism and bravery of our armed forces have been built up over generations. I welcome the fact that the Government, as the custodian of that inheritance, have proposed the measures in the Command Paper, which will go some way in helping to address morale. Does he recognise that the crucial thing that the Government must confront is the overstretch of our armed forces? To that end, when will he realise that the forces need to be withdrawn from Iraq and that their efforts need to be concentrated in Afghanistan, where there remains a major job to do?

We recognise that problem and the impact of service life on family life and harmony, and attempts to ensure that we stay within harmony guidelines are at the forefront for all of the services all of the time. We will, as the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have said repeatedly, leave Iraq when the conditions are right, when the job is done, and when Iraqi security forces are capable of taking over and protecting the democratic Government of Iraq. Hopefully, that will be sooner rather than later, but it has to be conditions-based, not based on some artificial timeline that the Liberal Democrats keep asking for.

I welcome the Command Paper, which I believe will make some changes, but is the Minister aware that at any one time there are between 3,000 and 4,000 people living in the Vale of York who work on the four military bases? One issue that the Command Paper does not deal with, concerning not just those in the military schools on the bases but those who go into normal education, is that it takes three to six months for the children of servicemen and women to settle in, which may be reflected in poorer results, both for them and for the school, and lead some servicemen and women to consider their long-term future with the Army? Will he please review that position now?

There is a clear commitment in the Command Paper to look at the disadvantage in terms of school placements that is sometimes caused to the armed forces by the way in which we oblige them to work. We will work with the adjudicator and the admissions code to identify any disadvantage and to deal with it. I agree that it is essential that we try to remove those annoyances, which is why the commitment is in the Command Paper. I will point out the chapter to the hon. Lady if she wishes after questions.

My right hon. Friend will know that the Defence Committee has just concluded a report on retention and recruitment in Her Majesty’s armed forces, and we have all been impressed by the opportunities in jobs, education and training that all three services give young men and women. In the light of that, does he agree that former senior members of the armed forces should comment on current situations rather than on some of the historical nonsense that we have heard over the past few days?

My hon. Friend points out a problem, which is that people talk from their own experiences, which are not necessarily up to date, about force protection as provided in the operational theatre, the welfare package or other packages and measures that we have tried to introduce to assist our armed forces. One would hope that they made themselves aware of recent developments before they comment on them.

My right hon. Friend must be aware that the big issue with recruitment is that we can do better if we have more regiments based in the north-west instead of reducing them, and that the best way of ensuring better retention is to stop the revolving door of going out to theatre, coming back and going straight back out. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we could extend the period in the UK between periods in theatre, we would have better morale and retention?

My hon. Friend is an honorary colonel in a north-west-based regiment, so I can understand his bias in that regard. We have tried to address to the maximum degree possible the harmony situation, and the breaches of harmony guidelines in the Army have come down from 15 per cent. to around 12 per cent. in the last year, although we must continue those efforts. My hon. Friend is right that if we are sending people out to theatre more often than not, that will have a bearing on morale. However, he should bear it in mind that there are some in our armed forces who are more than happy to deploy as often as they do, and some would seek to deploy more often than we think is good for them.

One way in which the Government have tried to combat falling numbers in the Army is by increasing recruitment from Commonwealth countries. Unfortunately, the G1 or welfare package has not kept pace. For example, if a Fijian soldier is given compassionate leave he is returned only to the UK and is forced to fund his own travel back to Fiji, or, invariably, his own unit will have to do so. Will the Minister look at this area to ensure that there is equity across the board for all soldiers?

There are a number of measures in the Command Paper. I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the chapters to do with foreign and Commonwealth recruits to our armed forces and our attempts to deal with some of the disparities in treatment and to remove some of the botheration from them, their families and their partners. There are measures that we have taken. If he wants to take up other measures with me, I am prepared to look at them and to talk to him about them.

Many Members of this House have concerns and want improved recruitment and retention in the reserve forces and the Regular Army. I am delighted to say that the all-party group on reserve forces launched a report earlier today—I am pleased that the Minister responsible for reserve forces was able to receive that report. May we be assured that that report will be taken seriously? Some excellent work is going on, particularly in the Royal Naval Reserve air branch, and the report is—we hope—our contribution to the excellent Command Paper and to ensuring that we have the best recruitment and retention in our armed forces.

My hon. Friend will know that, separate from the Command Paper, we are part way through a review of the reserve forces. It is not expected to complete before the end of the year. Of course, her comments and those of the all-party group will be taken on board. I know that the group is being consulted throughout that process.

The Minister’s hon. and indeed gallant Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) is undoubtedly right that overstretch is primarily the greatest problem. What effect does the Minister think it has on the recruitment, retention and particularly morale of soldiers, sailors and airmen to know that, if the head of their service speaks out in favour of better conditions for them, he can forget about ever becoming Chief of the Defence Staff?

If the hon. Gentleman were speaking the truth, that would be a very serious matter indeed. I see no facts to support the allegations made by the hon. Gentleman. The Chief of the Defence Staff remains in post and will remain in post. He is doing a very good job and steering us through the difficult times that confront our armed forces at present.

9. What arrangements have been made to ensure the availability of adequate supplies of potable water in Afghanistan for troops. (219815)

The UK has its own water treatment and bottling plant at Camp Bastion, producing significant amounts of drinking water per day from local sources. That water is transported onward to troops in operational locations. In addition, a number of forward operating bases are equipped with their own boreholes. Soldiers are also equipped with water purification tablets to treat local water if necessary when out on patrol.

I thank the Minister for his response. Much has been made of the equipment shortages besetting our armed forces in Afghanistan, and rightly so. Do the Minister and the Secretary of State not agree that the ability to provide adequate supplies of water to service personnel operating in desert conditions is the most basic responsibility and should be taken very seriously by the Government?

I give the hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance that of course that is taken very seriously. It is essential that we have a proper water supply. In fact, when the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) raised these matters with me, I checked up with our people and could find no evidence that people were denied water or were unable to access water. We take the matter very seriously indeed.

The Prime Minister is something of an authority on bottling, so he is no doubt aware that before the commencement of bottling at Camp Bastion the cost of producing a litre of water in theatre was 70p. It is now 22p and is projected to fall to 10p. Geographically displaced bottling plants have the capacity to resolve the recent problems that troops in Afghanistan have had with potable water—an inexcusable failure in the supply chain. I know the Minister, and he is no bottler. What is he doing to ensure that our men and women have a reliable supply of fresh water without having to endure the ill effects of water purification tablets?

It is absolutely a priority for the Government, the Ministry of Defence and the ministerial team to ensure that our people have the water supply they need. Their accessibility to water is very important and we continue to keep the matter under review to ensure that they have a water supply. As I said in my original answer, there is a bottling plant at Camp Bastion that works very well.

10. What progress has been made on the strategic review of the UK’s reserve forces; and if he will make a statement. (219816)

The strategic review of reserves work is now moving from research to analysis, returning to those consulted where necessary to test assumptions and to clarify detail. A second round of consultation workshops will be run in September, with delivery of the report due later this year.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the 102nd Battalion the Royal Electrical Mechanical Engineers, under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel Jock Murdoch? The REME battalion is based in Newton Aycliffe in my constituency, as is the 201st Northern Field Hospital and the 124th Recovery Company. REME and the other units have undertaken courageous duties in Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Territorial Army does a magnificent job in the most dangerous of circumstances?

My hon. Friend is right. We should never underestimate the contribution that is being made by our reserve forces to our current operations, as has been made throughout the 100 years of the TA. The reserves review is to ensure that they remain as relevant to the armed forces over the next 100 years as they are at present and have been over the past 100 years.

I join the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) both in thanking the Under-Secretary for attending our launch this morning and in congratulating the MOD reserves team on the way in which they are conducting the study. May I put it to Ministers that when it comes to making decisions they need to bear two things in mind? First, the volunteer reserves are working desperately hard and their numbers, too, are very much under pressure from overstretch. Secondly, our English-speaking cousins—America, Canada and Australia—all prove more imaginative than us in the number of ways they find to make good use of reservists, of whom helicopter crews are just one example.

I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman that we have to look all the time at how to improve the contribution that the reserves can make and that we have to be imaginative about exploring the possibilities. However, we must always be aware that those people are volunteers, so we have to balance that with the offer we actually make those individuals if it is to be sustainable over time. I am convinced—as I know is the hon. Gentleman—that we can get far more from our reserves than we do at present and that we may be able to offer them better opportunities and training and a more enjoyable experience.

11. What recent steps he has taken to improve recruitment, retention and morale in the armed forces. (219817)

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Members for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) and for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh).

I make no apology for returning to this hugely important issue, particularly in light of the MOD’s recent survey of servicemen and women, which found that up to 59 per cent. of Army personnel are now more likely to leave because of the level of operational commitments and overstretch. Although the steps the Government have already announced are to be welcomed, can the Minister tell the House a little more about what they will do specifically to tackle the twin problems of overstretch and frequency of tours?

As I said in the earlier exchanges, by managing our forces as well as possible given the present calls on them, we have reduced—or improved—the harmony gap in the Army and the other services. In terms of morale, retention and recruitment, the measures in the Command Paper will be significant. For example, if young people look not only at the educational opportunities they will have while in service but at the fact that if they give six years of service to the armed forces we will pay for their qualifications at A-level, or if they are already there, at foundation degree or degree course level, they will see that it is a considerable offer. When it is combined with the retention bonuses and the commitment bonuses paid across the forces—eight years’ service brings a £15,000 commitment bonus—I think we shall be able to continue to recruit good-quality people to our armed forces in the years to come.

I know that we have always recruited soldiers and sailors from the Commonwealth, but we are relying on those countries increasingly. Is there an upper limit on the number of people whom we take from Commonwealth countries?

There has been an increase in soldiers from foreign and Commonwealth countries in recent years, as my hon. Friend knows, but to say that we are totally reliant on them is wrong. We have traditionally recruited from many parts of the world, including parts of Africa and Fiji, and there are the Gurkha regiments, too. We are talking about long and historic connections with our armed forces, and I do not think that anybody thinks that we ought to pull back from them.

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities. (219832)

As Secretary of State for Defence, my departmental responsibilities are: to make and execute defence policy; to provide the armed forces with the capabilities that they need to achieve success in the military tasks in which they are engaged at home and abroad; and to ensure that they are ready to respond to tasks that might arise in the future.

I thank the Secretary of State for that response. According to Government figures, operations in Iraq in 2006-07 cost £956 million, while operations in Afghanistan cost £738 million. Will he explain why that is, given that there is a much larger troop presence, and much more troop activity, in Afghanistan?

The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is simply that that is what we needed to spend. The complexity of the two operational environments is such that comparisons of that sort cannot be drawn simply from the figures. I suggest that he avail himself of the opportunity to visit one or both of them. When he sees that there are some similarities between them, but also significant differences, he will understand why such a comparison cannot be drawn.

T2. In view of the recent tragic deaths involving personnel in Snatch Land Rovers, including the death of the first female British soldier to be killed in Afghanistan, and the coroner’s comments that the deaths could have been avoided if the protection of armed vehicles had been improved, will the Secretary of State tell us what precise measures have been taken to ensure that the coroner’s advice is taken on board and followed, so that we avoid future unnecessary deaths? (219833)

I have answered questions relating to vehicles at the Dispatch Box on a number of occasions, and indeed in debates we have gone into the subject at some length and in some depth, so I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Government’s responsibility is to provide operational commanders with a suite of vehicles that cover all operational requirements. I am sure that he will accept that. Consistently, military commanders are of the view that Snatch Land Rovers perform a necessary function in the operational theatre because, in part, the security of our troops there is related to how they present themselves to the communities in which they operate. That means balancing the risk of not having the protection that other vehicles, such as the Mastiff, may provide, against factors such as flexibility, speed of movement and presentation.

Every single day, I spend time with people in the Ministry of Defence looking at how we can enhance and improve the choice, and how we can improve protection. I stand by my record, and the record of my ministerial team in the MOD since I have been in charge. We have considerably improved investment in the vehicles that we have been able to deploy, but there is more to do. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me time to identify where the vehicles in question are, to equip them and to deploy them, I am sure that he will see them in the operational theatre in the medium term.

T8. In Portsmouth we have been celebrating the signing of the aircraft carrier contract, which will secure not only the future of Portsmouth naval base, but high-quality manufacturing jobs in our area for many years to come. Will my right hon. Friend carry on the good practice of interdepartmental working, which he started with the Command Paper, by working with the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills to ensure that young people in our area take advantage of the apprenticeships on offer at this joint venture? In that way, we will also keep the skills base for many years to come. (219839)

Of course; that applies across the entire industrial estate. My hon. Friend made a point about the skills that there will potentially be in Portsmouth for generations to come. They have to be exploited, but we cannot do that on our own in the MOD. I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to work with other Departments to do so.

To go back to the point that the Secretary of State made a moment ago, I should say that Snatch Land Rovers do have flexibility, and commanders appreciate that. However, the risk to our troops is getting ever greater. Can the Secretary of State expand on his previous answer and tell us what alternatives the Government have already considered to replace the Snatch Land Rover? What might the estimated costs of such a programme be and does he expect the full cost to be carried by the Treasury reserve?

The hon. Gentleman is aware that we have approved more than £3.6 billion of urgent operational requirements for Iraq and Afghanistan, and the majority of those have related to force protection, including the requirement for protected vehicles. From his own experience in the operational theatre and from talking to military commanders, he will be aware of how welcome the Mastiff vehicle, among others, has been in the operational theatre. Protected vehicles, armour, electronic counter-measures and body armour are all part of the complex suite of capabilities that we need to protect our people in theatre. Commanders now in the operational theatre are extremely positive about the equipment that they have.

However, all vehicles, including the Mastiff, have their vulnerabilities; no vehicle can completely guarantee protection, which is derived from a combination of factors. However, we have a range of vehicles now. There is a role for the Snatch, the Viking, the Land Rover, the Jackal and the Mastiff. There is also a role for the Ridgback vehicle—the 4x4 vehicle that we are in the process of procuring, up-armouring and completely fitting out. That investment is being supported by the reserve. However, there is also, of course, a role for the MOD to look forward at how it purchases and protects vehicles for the long term. That has to be part of the thinking in respect of the ongoing equipment programme.

On 8 July, the Secretary of State told the House:

“The MOD does not make provision for the net additional cost of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan—this is recovered from the Treasury Reserve.”—[Official Report, 8 July 2008; Vol. 478, c. 1458W.]

However, is it not true that when procurement through urgent operational requirements reaches £900 million, 50 per cent. of the cost is directly carried by the MOD? This year, with troops active in Iraq and Afghanistan, and with fuel costs soaring, the MOD will be forced to cut £400 million from its own budget. What sort of crazy agreement penalises the military when they get new equipment and cuts the core budget in the middle of two wars? That arrangement is not the Treasury reserve carrying the burden of Afghanistan, but a guarantee to bleed the military dry over time.

I read in my copy of The Times this morning that the hon. Gentleman was threatening to grill me about the increase in the fuel bill. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says, “Don’t believe what you read in the papers.” I have often given him that advice, including when he has briefed the papers to report what was being reported. The fact is that I did not recognise the detail that had informed the story in The Times. [Interruption.] I say to the hon. Gentleman that the total cost of fuel last year for the MOD was about a quarter of what has been suggested. If he is relying on the information in The Times, he is misinformed. The agreement to which he refers, which is reported and transparent, is designed to get the balance right between long-term investment and urgent operational requirements. I have never been refused any request that I have made to the Treasury for urgent operational requirements, and I do not expect that I ever will be.

T9. May I refer the Secretary of State to the parliamentary question that I tabled on 13 November 2007 asking what his Department intended to do to commemorate the rather special 90th anniversary this year of the armistice? The Secretary of State, his Minister of State and the junior Minister have always promised to write to me, but we are now about to go on parliamentary recess. They do not only need to write to me—they need to tell the world what we are going to do. Will they make a statement to tell us how we are going to mark this very important social, political, military and legal anniversary, in which many schoolchildren, students and veterans are very interested? (219840)

I assure my hon. Friend that I will keep him up to date, as I have on a regular basis. The last thing that I said to him was that there would be a ceremony at the Cenotaph for the 90th anniversary. I have also been in discussions with my French counterpart about what might happen in France. I assure my hon. Friend that as soon as I have more details I will write to him with them.

T3. What could be more topical than the historic welcome that Parliament as a whole is about to offer 4 Mechanised Brigade as it marches through Carriage Gates this afternoon? Does the Secretary of State agree that your presence, Mr. Speaker, at 3.45 pm at the North Door of Westminster Hall is symbolic of the pride and gratitude that the entire nation feels for the fantastic job that 4 Mech Brigade has done in Iraq? (219834)

I had the privilege of visiting 4 Mech Brigade twice when it was deployed in Iraq. No words will be sufficient to recognise the contribution that it has made to the improvement in the situation for the Iraqi people, particularly in the city of Basra and the wider province. It is a small thing for those of us in this House to welcome the brigade here, to spend some time with the soldiers and to say thank you. I am delighted, Mr. Speaker, that you have given permission—I am sure that that was easy to do—for them to march through Carriage Gates. I am even more delighted that you can be there to welcome them on behalf of us all.

T4. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the discussions of senior officers in the RAF and the MOD about the possible sale of some tranche 1 Eurofighter aircraft to help to fund tranche 3 are continuing? Will he put us out of our misery and tell us when he is going to make an announcement on this vital order for BAE Systems in my constituency? (219835)

As has already been reported to the House, an equipment review is going on in the MOD. That is designed to inform the decisions of the next—2009—planning round. The issues that the right hon. Gentleman talks about are part of that review, along with a lot of other things.

Will my right hon. Friend comment on the success or otherwise of recruitment from ethnic minorities? I am thinking specifically of the Bangladeshi and Pakistani communities in the north of England, where there are high levels of unemployment.

We are making some progress on recruitment among ethnic minorities, but not nearly as much as we would want. To be frank with the House, we are still behind on the targets that we have set ourselves. However, we are moving in the right direction, albeit at a slower pace than I, or my hon. Friend, would want. How exactly we go about placing ourselves well among some of our ethnic minority communities needs constant thought. If she has any ideas that she wants to feed into that process, they would be most welcome to me and to my ministerial colleagues.

T5. The former commander of 3 Para, Lieutenant-Colonel Stuart Tootal, recently said:“We had seven Chinooks for a battle group of 1,200; now there are only eight Chinooks for four battle groups. If you’re not flying you’re driving, and if you’re driving when you should be flying you’re vulnerable to roadside bombs…we don’t have enough helicopters.” Does the Secretary of State agree? (219836)

We addressed this question earlier. As I have made plain, including in my written statement to the House, the number of helicopter hours and the availability of helicopters have increased significantly—by 30 per cent.—and we are taking further steps to increase the fleets from which we will deploy aircraft into Afghanistan. In addition, we are part of a coalition, and the Canadians have taken steps as a consequence of their review to buy six additional Chinooks and eight Griffins, and they are leasing eight Mi-17s in the short term.

The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that, in co-operation with France, we have engaged in an initiative with the European Union and NATO to increase the deployability of the many hundreds of helicopters that many of our allies have but which are not deployable, either because their crews are not skilled enough to fly them in the environment or because they are not suitably equipped to provide the maximum amount of safety. Those things are going on all the time; the problem is that it takes time to get from where we are to a point where we have further deployable equipment in the operational theatre. Every single day, however, we make a step in the right direction.

T6. Any escalation in the tension between Iran and Israel would have implications for our troops in the region. There has been recent talk of Israel taking military action unilaterally. What would be the position of the British Government if that were to occur? (219837)

The Israeli Government’s position is four-square with that of the international community in the preponderance of activity in trying to deal with the Iranian challenge across the board, in terms of the diplomatic effort. Where some encouragement of the Iranians has been needed, we have all gone to the United Nations. We have significant numbers of troops deployed in the region, and other assets there. We have contingencies for almost any eventuality, in terms of the protection of our troops and others in the region.

T7. The UK defence industry employs 310,000 highly skilled workers and it won exports of about £10 billion last year, but the Prime Minister chose to snub the Farnborough air show. Did the Secretary of State advise him not to attend? (219838)

The Government were well represented at the Farnborough air show. A number of Cabinet Ministers were there; indeed, when I attended there were at least three other Ministers present. I heard no complaint from those who were at the Farnborough air show, exhibiting or engaged—[Interruption.] I heard no complaint from any of those who were there that they had not got the support that they expected from the Government. On the contrary, I consistently heard praise for those in the Government—in the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and my Department in particular—who had supported them to win those orders, which created the jobs that the hon. Gentleman identified.