When the type 45 destroyer will enter service. [100954]

On current plans, the type 45 destroyer is expected to enter service with the Royal Navy in 2007.

In 2007. Given the massive cuts in the defence budget, can the Minister guarantee even that derisory date?

The massive cuts came under the previous Government not this one, and they were cuts by stealth rather than by the comprehensive review that the strategic defence review represented. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the type 45 will come on stream in 2007 and it will be managed in such a way that there will be no depletion of operational capability whatsoever.

If these vessels are to come into operation and are to join the fleet in 2007, the orders for their construction will have to be signed soon. Dare I remind my hon. Friend the Minister that many of my constituents and other people who work along the Clyde want those orders to be signed and want a fair share of the work to come to the Clyde shipyards?

The orders for construction will be made in the new year. We are conscious that the shipbuilding industry in certain parts of the country relies heavily upon its capability for building military vessels. The Clyde will get more than its share of those contracts on the basis of its capacity to compete effectively with other yards around the country.

Does the Minister agree with the many people who are worried that the type 45 will carry the French SYLVER missile launcher, which will launch only one type of missile? Would it not be better to equip the ship with a multiple system that could fire Tomahawks and other missiles? That would turn this anti-aircraft destroyer into a truly multi-role combat vessel.

I think that the intention to purchase the principal anti-air missile system, as it develops, is very judicious. That will meet the operational demands that have been set out. I am absolutely confident that it will meet the needs of the Royal Navy, using the type 45 as its platform.

After all the delays to the project that took place under the previous Government, may I welcome the fact that it is now back on track? Does that not demonstrate the great benefits that there will be from smart procurement? What is my hon. Friend doing to ensure that smart procurement is being driven through at all levels in the Ministry of Defence, so that it is fully realised as early as possible?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out that this development comes from the previous Government's failure to ensure that the Horizon programme was properly conceptualised. We have ensured that the same deadline dates and the same operational capacities will be met. Our adherence to the principles of smart procurement will ensure that, in future, such purchases will be cheaper, will be delivered faster and will be far more efficient.

The type 45 destroyer was announced in 1992 with an in-service date of 2002. Yes, that date slipped two years under the Conservative Government, but it has slipped three years in two years under this Government. That is just part of the problem. There is a lot of big talk about two aircraft carriers, but there is nothing said about the ships that will defend them or about the replacement for the type 23. We know that they are short of money to the tune of about £1 billion a year and that there is no hope of the £2 billion saving from smart procurement. When, for the sake of an industry that both sides of the House are interested in preserving, will we receive some straight answers? The compendium of staff requirements and targets was due for publication in September, but that date slipped into the spring. We have not had the strategic defence review figures on budget forecasts or a comprehensive spending review of more than a few lines. Will the Minister guarantee that we shall have before Christmas the first White Paper on defence spending since 1996 and will he guarantee that we shall debate it when the House returns in January?

The hon. Gentleman overstates the case—to put it mildly—on the success or otherwise of the Horizon project. He makes rather spurious claims about slippage, but I assure him that the present Government took a very brave decision when they decided to review the plans for the type 45. We found out what the real slippage was and understood plainly what the previous Government failed to understand. We understood that we needed to ensure that we have the industrial capacity to meet such a complex order and to ensure that it takes place within a framework of affordability. The previous Government failed to do either.

What discussions he has had with his European counterparts regarding spending on common defence initiatives. [100955]

At the Helsinki European Council, European Union member states committed themselves to strengthening their military capabilities and to developing the means for the EU to act in support of its foreign and security policy objectives, strengthening the European NATO pillar and allowing the EU to undertake operations where NATO is not engaged.

President Chirac has said of the European Union that it

No, it is not, and if the hon. Lady read carefully the conclusions of the Helsinki summit, she would find that there is a specific undertaking not to create a European army. What Helsinki does is good for Europe and good for NATO. By strengthening the European pillar of NATO, we are providing a greater capability for Europe to strengthen NATO's operations and, in particular, to allow the European Union, as I said few moments ago, to become engaged in operations where NATO is not involved.

When does my right hon. Friend think that he will be able to make a decision on common spending and procurement, which affects not only Britain but Germany, France and Spain, on the heavy lift project? May I urge on him the solution of the A400M, which British Aerospace would participate in and which would be of huge benefit to my constituents in Broughton? I remind my right hon. Friend that, in a previous Administration, a Secretary of State for Defence said that he recognised the need for some 40 to 50 heavy lift aircraft—what we could call the A400M. It is insufficient to have only 25 to 30 such aircraft.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his ingenuity in asking such an erudite and thoughtful question, which I am sure is of passing interest to his constituents. I can assure him that the Government are considering carefully that procurement issue. That careful consideration will continue for some time yet, but I am confident that the decision will be made not too far into the new year.

The Secretary of State answered my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) by talking about the EU defence capability. Is not the reality, however, that, after Amsterdam, the Prime Minister referred in the House to the plans—which he said that he had blocked—to move the Western European Union into the European Union and give the EU a defence capability as

The UK played a leading role in shaping crucial European Union policy that strengthens the EU's ability to operate and to support its common foreign and security policy while, as I said earlier, strengthening NATO. On the subject of changes of emphasis, what is revealing is the Conservative party's obsessively anti-European tone. A once formidable political party has now assumed the status of a pressure group.

As ever, the Secretary of State talks rubbish. The truth is that the Prime Minister has not introduced a change of emphasis; he has turned British defence policy round by 180 deg. The Secretary of State glibly refers to that policy change as a change of emphasis, but that is not what they believe over in Europe.

The hon. Gentleman has been trying hard to decouple the United States from the United Kingdom and Europe. Indeed, he has gone to the US deliberately to scaremonger on that particular subject. He cannot get round the fact that Strobe Talbott said at Chatham House,

Yet again—this is the third time—the Secretary of State will not answer the real questions. There will be no extra spending by any European Government on the proposal. The capability will be no greater; it is more likely to be less. As we saw in the Sunday papers, east Europeans who recently joined NATO are scared stiff because they are excluded from the process and the United States is worried to the extent that it carries out an inquiry. What the Prime Minister does not say publicly is that he has agreed to Mr. Solana becoming the Defence Minister for Europe. Will not the Government's policy leave us with a common European army policy, which is the same as the common agricultural policy—a disaster?

The hon. Gentleman should know that questions of defence spending are a matter for national Governments, and that the matter to which he referred is one for our European partners. He would equally know, if he had read the Helsinki summit conclusions carefully, that a specific commitment on capability was agreed, and that each country signed up to it. That means that each country must make available such forces and assets to deliver up to a 60,000-strong rapid reaction force into a theatre of operations quickly. That is clear and practical and, I am proud to say, something which the British Government led the way in negotiating and framing.

If the European defence initiative represents such a threat to NATO, will the Secretary of State explain why all 19 NATO countries, including the United States, signed a declaration of support for it at the Washington summit?

I have puzzled for some time over why Conservative Members cannot understand the plain statements of representatives of the American Administration and senior figures in Washington. They have made it clear, as did William Cohen, the United States Defense Secretary, at a recent NATO ministerial meeting in Brussels, that the improvement of European capability "will strengthen NATO", and that there is no ground whatever for any speculation of a possible division between Europe and the United States. If Conservative Members were able to be less obsessively anti-European and looked at the facts a little more clearly, they would come to the clear conclusion reached by our friends in Washington.

What recent representations he has received regarding the use of his Department's leisure and recreation facilities by civilian members of the public; and if he will make a statement. [100956]

We welcome public use of the Department's leisure and recreational facilities provided that it does not conflict with the Department's operational purposes, safety or security requirements, or the interests of the Department's landlords, tenants or conservation. Where such use is agreed, fees are usually charged and an appropriate insurance policy is put in place. Representations are received frequently from members of the public wishing to use such facilities. Such requests are either agreed or denied based on the above constraints.

May I draw the Minister's attention to the £4 million new facility at Wattisham MOD base in my constituency, which is a physical and recreational training centre comprising a 25 m swimming pool, physiotherapy and weight-training rooms and a sports hall? Is he aware that some of my constituents have pointed out that, given that taxpayers paid for that excellent new facility, local civilians in the Needham market area should be allowed access to it? As everyone is interested in getting value for taxpayers' money, will he consider implementing arrangements at the Wattisham base to allow local civilians to use those fine facilities?

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments about Wattisham. He may not know it, but that is one of two pilot schemes, which are evidence of the success of the smart construction initiative. I have been there and seen the fine work being done. I would be more than happy for the people of Wattisham to be able to access those facilities, subject to the constraints that I mentioned, and subject to the unit commander reaching agreement with local community representatives on the use of those facilities.

What assessments he has made of the prospective level of recruitment and retention in the TAVR during each of the next three years. [100957]

If he will make a statement on the level of recruitment to the Territorial Army. [100958]

My Department has recently completed an assessment of anticipated recruitment and retention for the reserves as part of the armed forces' forward manpower planning. We are confident that, over the next three years, the reserve forces will be able to both recruit and retain sufficient numbers of volunteers to fulfil and sustain the roles set out for them in the strategic defence review.

That is an encouraging answer. However, I gather that only three out of five reservists are available to go into service, having finished their training, and that in the field hospital just over the river in my constituency in Walworth, for example, only about half have signed up for humanitarian aid or multinational work because of the financial implications of that. Will the Minister re-examine the terms and conditions that can be offered to doctors, nurses and the like, who want to be available as reserves to do humanitarian work with our services, but at present cannot do that without prejudice to their jobs or their careers?

The hon. Gentleman touches on an important point. I am pleased to say that we have had constructive discussions with the NHS regarding the availability of those who work in the NHS and who are also members of the reserve forces. It would be fair to say that there were difficulties in the past, but those have decreased and we are getting far fewer complaints in that regard. If, however, the hon. Gentleman wants to raise specific concerns with us, I should be more than happy to look into them, recognising that there has been a great improvement in relations, to the benefit of both the NHS and the defence medical services.

Will the Minister confirm that, for the first time since the second world war, whole units of the Territorial Army are being called up for a peace-keeping role in Kosovo and Bosnia? Will he also confirm that the cuts in the Territorial Army, which his Government have imposed, will represent savings of less than 1 per cent. of the total defence budget in any one year? Finally, will he recognise the effect on towns such as Guildford of cutting the historic tie between the TA and our town, and the effect that that will have on future recruitment not just in the Territorial Army, but in the main Army?

The hon. Gentleman asks a number of questions. He spoke about calling up units. That was part of the legislation agreed by both parties under the previous Administration for reserve forces.

But not for cuts.

I will come to the hon. Gentleman's second question. He insists on asking three questions in one, but I shall answer serially. The restructuring under the strategic defence review was to reshape our reserve forces to meet the needs of the post-cold war era, rather than the pre-cold war era, and therefore to focus less on home protection and reinforcement of infantry, and far more on the specialist roles of the various reserve services. We have been doing that successfully, to ensure that our reserve forces are both usable and used.

What progress has been made since 1 May 1997 in disposing of land and housing held surplus to requirements. [100959]

My Department has made good progress in disposing of surplus land since 1 May 1997. During the financial years 1997–98 and 1998–99, disposal receipts from such sales totalled some £302 million.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Two of the three barracks in which I did my national service in the Royal Marines—Eastney and Deal—are now closed. Can my hon. Friend confirm that the Government's record of selling such assets and using the proceeds to regenerate local communities is far better than that of the previous Government?

I am bound to agree with my hon. Friend, but whether the Opposition would accept that is a different matter. Following the comprehensive spending review and the strategic defence review, we have set in train a process whereby, over a four-year period, we will raise more than £700 million in capital receipts from surplus assets. Moreover, we have a large number of brownfield sites dotted about the country and we fully intend to bring as many of those as possible back into practical use, rather than leaving them to rot away and waste, as was the case under the previous Government. The brownfield land alone would be enough to build 26,000 new homes.

Given that those figures are below the trend line required to meet the £700 million requirement; given that the first part of the figures would have included receipts generated from the defence cost studies process; given the time it takes to get property receipts into the budget; given that the Department is struggling hugely to meet its £2 billion a year efficiency savings programme, and, as we have just heard, that we have given a commitment to strengthen our military capability which is bleeding away as experience bleeds out of the armed forces and as the retention figures deteriorate, will the Department go back to the Treasury to insist that the defence budget is not required to meet any undershoot if it fails to meet the property savings targets?

I hate to disillusion the hon. Gentleman, but the reality is that we shall meet our targets. We are ahead of the targets and doing extremely well with property sales. Some large sales are looming, which I think will take us beyond the figures that we have anticipated. I am confident that we shall meet all the ambitions that we have set out in the strategic defence review.

Through the success of my hon. Friend in the sale of housing and land that are no longer needed, will he ensure that overseas housing is brought up to a habitable standard and then ensure that our armed forces are treated as well overseas as in the United Kingdom, which will help with retention?

We are well aware of the problems for retention if we do not have a reasonable standard of accommodation both for single personnel and for those occupying married quarters. We are in discussions to ensure that we have a consistent standard of habitable accommodation for those serving at home and those serving abroad.

If he will make a statement on the southern and northern no-fly zones in Iraq. [100960]

The no-fly zones have served a vital humanitarian purpose for the past eight years in helping to limit Saddam Hussein's brutal repression of his own people. I very much regret Saddam's efforts to shoot down coalition aircraft carrying out these legitimate patrols. Let me make it clear. If Saddam stops trying to kill our aircrew, we will stop attacking the systems he uses to threaten them.

I thank the Minister for his response. Will he explain what further action he can take to stop Iraq's campaign of repression in the south, where I understand that villages are still being destroyed? I understand also that villagers are expelled at gunpoint and that water supplies are cut off. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain also whether he expects the UN monitoring, verification and inspection commission to be more or less successful than the UN Special Commission in its monitoring role? Will he outline what the composition of that organisation is likely to be?

The hon. Gentleman will know that the United Kingdom has been heavily engaged in trying to promote a new resolution in the Security Council. We are in the end game of that process. I anticipate that there will be further discussions on that issue today in the UN in New York. As for the outcome, we are confident that the resolution that we have helped to draft will provide a sensible basis for dealing with Iraq and will provide an opportunity and a road towards lifting the sanctions while securing the interests of those countries in the region, which remain extremely concerned about the ability of Saddam Hussein to produce weapons of mass destruction. It is important that we find a new basis for dealing with Iraq. Until that happens, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept from me that we shall continue to put pressure on Saddam Hussein to maintain the no-fly zones, and to preserve the situation in the north and the south as our response to an overwhelming humanitarian necessity, where Saddam Hussein and his brutal regime are seeking to destroy the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of his own people.

I want to express my appreciation for the air and ground crews who operate missions over north and south Iraq. They endure considerable periods of separation from their families, especially over Christmas, on operations that are not without risk to the aircrews who fly them. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that sufficient Tornado offensive support airframes are available, especially while the mid-life update of the aircraft is taking place, to permit Tornado operations elsewhere if the need arises?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his good wishes. I shall ensure that they are communicated to our forces in that region, who operate in extremely dangerous circumstances, putting their lives at risk to protect people on the ground. They will appreciate his sentiments. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be sufficient airframes to do that valuable and important job.

I congratulate the Government on the United Nations resolution, which combines humanitarian relief with a strategy to deal with Saddam's continuing capability to use weapons of mass destruction, and the possibility that he is developing a nuclear capability while continuing to develop chemical and biological weapons. Will my right hon. Friend remind people again of the latest report of Mr. van der Stoel, the UN Rapporteur on human rights, who makes it clear that repression, torture and inhumane treatment, as well as ethnic cleansing, continue in Iraq?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I agree with her comments. We hope that we can persuade all members of the Security Council to agree to the resolution. The matter remains under discussion, but we are working as hard as we can on what, I believe, is an excellent statement of the international community's position.

The majority in the House support the Government's action. However, will the Secretary of State listen to the advice that we received last week from the equivalent of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the Assemblée Nationale in Paris? I shall quote from it—I ask hon. Members to excuse my translation. It states:

"The loss of sovereignty of Iraq, especially in the North of …the country, is not admissible."

I congratulated my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) on his ingenuity. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not extend the same courtesy to him. The answer to his point is simple: there is a range of views in western European democracies, and it would be unfortunate if they were not expressed. That is different from the position in Iraq, where there is no possibility of expressing such a range of views. It is inevitable that tensions will arise when the country is led by a man such as Saddam Hussein. Those tensions will continue unless and until there is a democratic Government in Iraq.

What steps his Department has taken to check the wiring of military aircraft following recent crashes; and how many military aircraft have been rewired as a result. [100961]

As a result of damaged, mishandled or misrouted wires, instances of electrical fires caused two Harrier aircraft accidents in 1991. As a result of those accidents, remedial action was taken and there is no evidence that any recent crashes were caused by problems with electrical wiring. The safety of electrical wiring in UK military aircraft is reviewed continuously. Wiring is inspected whenever maintenance activity takes place on an aircraft. We work closely with the British Standards Institution to ensure that aircraft wiring meets the highest standards of safety and installation.

That all sounds very comforting, and I am happy to hear it, but my hon. Friend will be aware that the length of life of some of the aircraft in the list that he was kind enough to give me is way beyond what was originally envisaged for them by the builders. There is a real worry that wiring faults, in military and civil aircraft, may be a contributory cause of major crashes and it is difficult to inspect all the systems when looking at the wiring of an aircraft during maintenance. Will my hon. Friend please give me a guarantee that—despite his confidence in the efficiency of aircraft—he will look carefully in the immediate future at the type of wiring used and at any dangers that may arise from that?

It is not unusual for military aircraft—so long as there is sufficient assurance about their safety—to run over the life that was originally predicted by either the purchasers or the manufacturers. A number of aircraft are updated with newer equipment, but the basic frame may stay the same. When we undertake routine wiring maintenance, wiring is often replaced and newer materials introduced, but there is also stringent and rigorous inspection and attention is paid to possible mechanical treatment of wiring. Often, the combination of the chemical qualities of the insulation and the mechanical treatment causes arcing and fires. As I said in my original answer, we have not had any evidence of that problem since 1991, but our engineering departments are alert to keeping a look out for it.

What study has the Minister made himself of Kapton wiring and what conclusion has he reached?

I am Spellar, PPE Oxford not MSc Eng.Chem. The hon. Gentleman points to the reasons why we have such extremely fine service engineers, on both the fitting and the technical and engineering side, who give us excellent advice. That is borne out by the fact that no fires have caused crashes since 1991, and I am rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman should cast such a slur on the excellent technical personnel in the Royal Air Force.

What representations he has received from his French counterparts regarding European defence co-operation. [100962]

At St. Malo in December 1998, the United Kingdom and France launched a major initiative aimed at building European security and defence. Since then, we have continued to work closely with our French defence counterparts, culminating in the joint declaration made at our London summit on 25 November. That declaration called on European nations to strengthen their military capabilities and was an important stepping stone towards the Helsinki European Council.

Despite their many other virtues, have not our French allies for more than 40 years weakened the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation by staying outside its integrated military structure? Has not their main reason for that been pride, and resentment of America's role in defending Europe? By playing dangerous games with the formation of a Euro-army, are not the Labour Government undermining the prospects for our future conventional defence, just as they tried to undermine our prospects for successful nuclear deterrence in the 1980s?

If the hon. Gentleman goes to the Library, he will be able to find a copy of the Helsinki summit conclusions, which state that it has been agreed by the United Kingdom and the French Government, as well as every other Government of the European Union, that the initiative is not leading to the creation of a European army.

"The relationship between British and French forces at operational level is fantastic. It should be developed. We are the two most serious countries about defence in Europe. … We need to do things together."—[Official Report, 10 June 1999; Vol. 332, c. 812.]

My right hon. Friend is confident that the common defence policy will not affect our relationship with the United States, but does he agree that the forces of isolationism are always just below the surface in the United States, and is he not concerned that these initiatives might give succour to people in the United States who want to tear up the anti-ballistic missile treaty, with all the consequences of that?

Clearly, there are concerns in the United States. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] In a vigorous democracy it is inevitable that some people will take a particular view of a particular problem. However, there are no difficulties with the Administration and majority opinion on the Hill: they recognise that, by strengthening the European pillar of NATO, we are strengthening NATO as a whole.

Can the increased defence capability as proposed at the Helsinki Council be provided by the United Kingdom and France alone, or is it a non-runner unless there is greater public expenditure on defence by other European Union countries?

As I said earlier, precise expenditure by other European Union countries is a matter for them. By agreeing to a capability assessment and to deploying specific forces to meet that assessment, European nations are saying that we will spend what is necessary to reach that conclusion. By specifying what forces and equipment are needed to reach that rapid reaction capability, we are specifying precisely what we need to do as European nations. We are improving the European pillar of NATO in a practical way. Those countries will have to decide how they should spend the money to achieve those ends. Having agreed the ends, we have achieved a practical conclusion that strengthens Europe inside NATO.

Would my right hon. Friend confirm that Britain and France enjoy a close relationship on nuclear matters? My memory tells me that. Would he also confirm my recollection that the policy was put together by the Conservative party, which now doubts anything and everything French?

I can recall an occasion in the 1980s on which the Government under Lady Thatcher were keen on closer Anglo-French co-operation—indeed, her major foreign policy adviser wrote about that recently. Perhaps Conservative Members should consider a little more carefully the history of these matters, especially the conclusion of the Berlin summit and the text of the Maastricht treaty, which show that they were in favour of European defence co-operation in the relatively recent past. They have now abandoned that view because of the obsessive anti-Europeanism that now infects the entire Conservative party.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with those who say that membership of the euro—the single currency—is essential to the success of a European defence force?

No.

What discussions he has had with his United States counterpart about that country's use of cluster bombs in Kosovo; what representations his Department has received on the use of cluster bombs; and if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on the future role of cluster bombs. [100963]

I have had no discussions with the United States Defence Secretary on this subject.

Is the Secretary of State aware that cluster bombs used during the Kosovo conflict were dropped from a height of 15,000 ft, although they had been designed to be dropped from a much lower level? Did that not increase the number of bomblets that did not explode on hitting the ground, jeopardising the local population and, in effect, becoming land mines? Many hon. Members, including me, felt that military action over Kosovo was justified, but surely the use of cluster bombs in that way has put the allied forces on very shaky moral ground internationally. Will the Secretary of State reconsider the use of such weapons in all future conflicts, and discuss it with all our NATO allies—including the United States—so that cluster bombs are not used in the same way again?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern, but, in a previous ministerial capacity, I examined the Ottawa convention very carefully, and there is no doubt that, as a matter of international law, a cluster bomb cannot be defined as a land mine in either the spirit or the letter of the convention. Given that there is no international pressure for the expansion of the convention to cover cluster bombs, or to change the definition of a land mine to include them, I cannot accept my hon. Friend's argument.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the realities on the ground? The failure rate of cluster bombs is some 5 to 10 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman speaks of finding effective weapons systems; this weapons system is clearly failing, and is endangering the lives of those whom it was designed to protect. Surely, in such circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman can start thinking along the lines of an ethical defence policy.

In fact, the failure rate is around 5 per cent.

When he plans to announce a decision on the future location of the Centre for Defence Medicine. [100964]

I am delighted to announce that, after careful consideration, the University Hospital Birmingham NHS trust has been selected as the host for the new centre for defence medicine. The three competing bids received from NHS trusts were all of a very high quality, but after rigorous evaluation, the University Hospital Birmingham NHS trust was found to meet our requirements most effectively.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that one in eight of the armed forces are recruited in the north-east of England, while only one in 100 jobs are located there? One of the three sites under consideration—an excellent site—was in the centre of the city of Newcastle. Does my hon. Friend realise that his announcement will be greeted with a good deal of dismay, disappointment and, indeed, anger in that area?

I recognise that Newcastle, as well as Guy's and St. Thomas's, will be disappointed not to have been selected as the preferred host. I reiterate that all three bids were of extremely high quality, but we had to choose one, and the bid from the University Hospital Birmingham NHS trust was clearly the best and met the criteria. I fully understand what my hon. Friend has said. I understand the disappointment, but it was the best of three good bids.

It is over a year since the Government announced the foundation of a centre of medical excellence, during which time a number of the prime candidates have dropped out, leaving only three. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the level of dismay that will be felt within defence medical services that the Government are pressing ahead with the plan? Is he aware that, if they were to proceed, the effect would be to transfer doctors and nurses from an area of medical deprivation—South Hampshire—to one which I understand has sufficiency? I use the word "would" rather than "will" because I forecast that doctors and nurses who have chosen in the past five years to move their homes and families to South Hampshire to be near the only tri-service hospital at Haslar will not move to Birmingham. The result will be that the Government's inept and disastrous policy will not succeed.

The hon. Gentleman has had a long and consistent record of representing his constituency on this issue. As he knows, I met him and his constituents at Haslar. The message that I got from people in the defence medical services was quite the reverse: they were asking for an early decision on the centre for defence medicine. They see that as an attraction and a key part of a future successful defence medical services. That is separate from the issue of the role of Haslar and the transfer to Queen Alexandra hospital, Portsmouth. They see the centre as an integral part of the defence medical services and a major attraction to young people wishing to be involved. All the messages that I get, not just from the chain of command, but from people on the ground, is that they are looking forward to the centre in Birmingham. They think that it is an exciting venture and prospect. When they become involved with the centre, they will find that that is what they joined up for, and what they will join up for.

Now that a decision has finally been made, may I have an assurance that there will be no reduction in Ministers' efforts to solve the problem for the constituency of the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) and my own?

I say to my hon. Friend and to all Members who represent the South Hampshire area that we are working extremely hard to effect a smooth and satisfactory transition. That is moving ahead. I accept that it is not an easy period for them, but we have exceedingly good relations now with the health authority, the health trust, the secondary care agency and representatives of the local council, whom I met in Gosport.

What recent discussions he has had with his European counterparts regarding expenditure on the Eurofighter. [100966]

I meet regularly with my European counterparts for discussions on a wide range of defence issues, including Eurofighter. Recent discussions have focused on the excellence of the aircraft and its importance for European defence industry, rather than on expenditure.

I wonder whether the Secretary of State could put my mind at rest on whether our European partners are paying their fair share of Eurofighter. Is he minded to indicate where the Eurofighter might be located? What steps will he take to inform residents who live near the respective RAF stations of what the implications will be for them?

Eurofighter is a superb aircraft. It is the product of European co-operation. It is well on course to enter service as the RAF's front-line fighter for the new millennium. I am delighted to be able to announce that Coningsby in Lincolnshire, Leeming in North Yorkshire and Leuchars in Fife, with their proud history of RAF service dating back to the beginning of the second world war, have been chosen as Eurofighter's operational bases. I am sure that that announcement, which I hope will be communicated to all those with constituency interests in due course, will be welcomed by all the people associated with those bases, whether they are in the RAF, or part of the local communities.

The Secretary of State's announcement will be welcomed throughout the Royal Air Force. It is particularly welcome to those of us who have supported Eurofighter—or Typhoon as we must learn to call it—in the House of Commons, not least when we remember that one of the right hon. Gentleman's Conservative predecessors practically undermined the whole programme by trying to lease F16s from the United States. Will he tell us in a little more detail the programme for withdrawal of the Tornado F3 and the Jaguar aircraft? When does he anticipate the last of the 232 Eurofighters will be deployed?

As I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows—I thank him for his good wishes—we expect the first Eurofighter to be delivered to the RAF in mid-2002. There will then be a consistent and steady deployment programme, allocating Eurofighters, as they are constructed, to the different air forces that have ordered them. Therefore—if the right hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me—I shall not be too specific about the final in-service and replacement dates. Clearly, however, the Eurofighter is a huge success for European co-operation, and I hope that that lesson will not be lost on Conservative Members.

Will the right hon. Gentleman note that the Eurofighter is a European aircraft and ought to be armed with European weapons? In making a decision on the beyond visual range air-to-air missile, will he bear in mind that if we were to buy American for BVRAAM, there is a danger that the United States could veto sale of the Eurofighter to third countries?

I shall certainly take those matters into account, and all those factors are being considered as part of the very careful evaluation of the various bids for the beyond visual range air-to-air missile. We are considering the matter very carefully.

If he will make a statement on the RAF's heavy lift requirement. [100968]

The strategic defence review concluded that we needed to improve our strategic transport to deploy joint rapid reaction forces more quickly to meet operational requirements in the changed strategic environment. The SDR further considered a wide range of options for enhancing our strategic airlift capability. It concluded that, in the short term, we should meet our strategic airlift needs with C17 aircraft or their equivalent, and that, in the longer term, we should consider a suitable replacement for our remaining transport aircraft.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he join me in congratulating the airmen and airwomen of RAF Lyneham in my constituency, whose current fleet of C130K Hercules flew 497 sorties in operation Agricola—carrying 4,964 passengers, 277 vehicles, and an astonishing 2,483 tonnes of freight? Does he agree that the Kosovo operation would not have been possible without the Hercules? Rather than doing what may be more politically expedient and moving towards the European Airbus A400M replacement, will he therefore commit himself to replacing the current Hercules fleet with the C130J and the C17?

The short answer is no. There are three responses to the longer-term aircraft needs of the transport wing, and we shall evaluate each of those, just as we shall do for bids to meet the short-term requirements—according to criteria that have been clearly stated and against which we have practised assiduously since publication of the strategic defence review. We will ensure that there is value for money and that requirements on qualities such as interoperability are satisfied. We will also certainly ensure that we get delivery on time, and that the aircraft meet operational requirements.

If he will make a statement about the role of the Territorial Army in supporting the Regular Army in Kosovo. [100969]

The Territorial Army is an integral part of our armed forces, and many members of the TA are currently serving in the Balkans theatre of operations. As of 3 December 1999, 229 members of the TA were serving in Kosovo. The TA also supports the Regular Army by back-filling jobs of Army personnel deployed in the region.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he join me in saying that we owe an enormous debt of gratitude to all Territorial Army members who are currently supporting the Regular Army, including the 17 members of the Royal Monmouth Royal Engineers currently deployed on humanitarian work in Bosnia and in Kosovo?

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I have special affection for the Royal Monmouth Royal Engineers, because—as he will know—a part of the unit is in my constituency. My hon. Friend—like others who have been to Kosovo and to Bosnia—will be aware of the tremendous job being done and the enthusiasm and commitment being shown by reserve forces in those places. They are working alongside their fellows in the Regular Army—doing a job that is well done, and a job which—contrary to some of the assertions made by Conservative Members—is worth doing.

Will the Minister take this opportunity to answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn), which he tried to dodge? Is it not the case that, because of defence cuts, the Territorial Army is having to be deployed compulsorily for the first time since the second world war?

As I said in my previous answer, it is strange for Conservatives to make that point, because it was the Conservative Government, with all-party support, who brought in the provisions for compulsory call-out under the Reserve Forces Act 1996, to make the TA and the reserve forces usable and used. I fail to understand why they have such a low opinion of the reserve forces that they do not think that we should be using them. They want to be used and we want to use them.