When he expects the Bowman tactical communications system to be delivered to the armed services. [104533]

We inherited not only a serious delay in the replacement for the Clansman radio, but an unsatisfactory mechanism for producing its replacement, the Bowman system.

The overall delay is a further slippage on top of what has happened in the past and has added to a long list of slippages on such things as the beyond-visual-range anti-aircraft missile—BVRAAM—the heavy lift, and ASTOR—the airborne stand-off radar. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House with confidence that these slippages have nothing to do with pressure from the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

I can, because the right hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the House for much longer than I have, and he has watched the previous Government's performance. He mentioned slippage in relation to Bowman. I remind him that, on that project, the Government inherited slippage of 75 months—more than six years. I know that the right hon. Gentleman looks at defence matters very seriously, and I am sure that, if he had looked at the matter in the round, he would have recognised that the problems of slippage in relation to that programme did not result largely from financial concerns but, in particular, from the need to ensure that British forces had the best equipment available to them, bearing in mind the significant technological changes over the period.

What is the additional cost to the Defence budget in 1999–2000 of British military operations in Kosovo; and if HM Treasury has agreed to increase the Defence vote to cover that cost. [104534]

As at the end of October, the Ministry of Defence had incurred net additional expenditure of £125 million on Kosovo operations during this financial year. That figure is expected to rise to just below £400 million by the end of 1999–2000. The Government have agreed that these costs will be covered by the reserve. The details are currently being discussed and will be included in the Department' s spring supplementary estimates.

Given the catalogue of cuts that have been inflicted on our armed services by the present Government, including the shortage of fuel for the Royal Navy, the lack of medical treatment for our service men and women, and the defective and unreliable weaponry with which our troops were sent into Kosovo, I think that the Secretary of State will agree that he owes it to the House to confirm to us today that the shortfall that has been incurred as a result of the Kosovan war will be made good by the Treasury in this financial year and to tell us that the stock of missiles and bombs that were expended during the Kosovan war will be replenished. If, however, he merely tells us that it is all the fault of the previous Conservative Government, what has he been doing about it for the past two and a half years?

If the hon. Gentleman had listened more carefully to my answer, he would have found that I had already given the assurance that he asked for in relation to his supplementary question. It is important to remind the House, when the hon. Gentleman talks about the catalogue of cuts, that we are talking about a reduction in the defence budget of around 3 per cent. in real terms over three years. That compares unfavourably with the record of the Conservative party, which cut defence spending by a third from the 1980s onwards—cuts for which the hon. Gentleman enthusiastically voted.

May I very much welcome the assurances given by my right hon. Friend? They once again demonstrate that the present Government's and the previous Government's management of defence spending are like chalk and cheese. Will he once again agree that Conservative Members who were members of the Government who cut defence spending by nearly one third have no right to preach on defence spending? Will he further agree that this Labour Government, through their strategic defence review, demonstrated their clear commitment to equipping the armed forces to play a leading role in humanitarian and peacekeeping efforts in the years to come?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Obviously, there is almost no limit to what could be spent under a defence budget heading, and it is the responsibility of any Government—including the previous Government—to maximise our defence capability within a reasonable share of public spending as a whole. Obviously, it was the aim of the strategic defence review to achieve that. The result is a balanced, better focused defence programme, which provides the defence capabilities required to meet this country's defence and security responsibilities now and into the future.

I hope the Secretary of State will forgive me, but there was a hint of complacency in that and his previous answer. The Army is short of tanks, the Royal Air Force is short of aircraft and the Navy is short of fuel and reliable medical services. All those shortages have a debilitating effect on morale and on capability. The root cause is inadequate resources, especially the so-called 3 per cent. annual efficiency saving that the Treasury exacted as its price for supporting the strategic defence review. In the light of those circumstances, how can we be confident that the Government will have the finance available to place the order for the necessary heavy-lift aircraft and the aircraft carriers that are central to the expeditionary strategy that underpins the strategic defence review?

I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been rather carried away by some of the more lurid headlines that he has read recently in newspapers. He generally takes a very responsible attitude towards such matters, but, sadly, some of the headlines were stimulated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself. None of the shortages that he claims is true. In particular, the matter that he raised over the weekend about the availability of aircraft was the result of snapshot statistics that were supplied to him together with a clear explanation that aircraft can be made ready at very short notice. Most aircraft can be made ready within hours and that is not a sign that we are short of aircraft. Indeed, the Royal Air Force carried out all of its operations over Kosovo and continues to carry out operations over Iraq without the slightest difficulty.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of reports and assessments that the police force that was envisaged for Kosovo has not been put in place. If that is so, will not many more armed forces be required for a longer period and will they not have to play a larger role? Has my right hon. Friend included that in the assessment that he has given to the House?

Of course, that is strictly the responsibility of the United Nations and its administration in Kosovo. Certainly, the United Kingdom has made police officers available and will continue to do so subject to the international requirements.

In the light of his earlier answer, can the Secretary of State confirm that we are severely short of Army manpower, severely short of RAF air crew at a time when the airlines are not recruiting and that we have cancelled—some of them for financial reasons—most of our major exercises this year?

The hon. Gentleman asks a number of different questions. First, let me disagree with the use of the word "severely". At any time in any armed forces there are vacancies. Recruitment for our armed forces has been extremely successful lately, as the hon. Gentleman knows from his experience as a member of the Defence Committee. The specific problem that successive Governments have faced with the armed forces has been not recruitment, but retention. Urgent measures have been put in place to deal with that and the latest statistics suggest that things are improving, and improving quite quickly. There is no severe shortage along the lines that the hon. Gentleman suggests.

What is the £400 million doing to protect the non-Albanians in Kosovo?

A great deal of effort has been made to secure the basic objective of our forces being deployed in Kosovo, which is to protect minorities. We went in there for humanitarian reasons and were very successful in ensuring the end to the atrocities against the Albanian community. Equally, I recognise that it is incumbent on international forces to protect the Serbian minority. They are doing that each and every day, and, in particular, the British forces are doing that very successfully.

Does the Secretary of State recall the anecdote of the American admiral, who signalled the British fleet, "How's the world's second largest navy", to which our man replied, "Fine; how's the second best?" Does he accept that if the British fleet is stuck in port due to fuel shortages, it will never have the chance to prove that it is the best in the world? It is no good him telling us, just to save his face, that there are 25 ships at sea this afternoon. Will he guarantee that the Navy will have enough fuel to meet both its training and its operational requirements and that he will never again cut the Navy's fuel budget by 30 per cent. just to reinstate it by 25 per cent., as he did this year?

I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman's description of the Royal Navy. He suggests by implication that, somehow, significant deployments can be organised in a matter of days, but, given half a minute's thought, he must know that deployments such as those of the past week take months and, sometimes, years to organise. If he gave a little thought to his observations, he would realise that much of what he has just said is nonsense.

How many women joined the armed forces in 1999. [104535]

Figures for the whole of 1999 are not yet available. In the 12 months up to 1 December 1999, 3,258 women were recruited into the armed forces from civilian life. That represents 13 per cent. of the total intake.

I thank the Minister for that reply and congratulate the armed forces on that achievement. As in Parliament, we women play a valuable role and make a valuable contribution—and we need more of them. Has the increase been sustained across the three services? Are there posts still not open to women? If so, will he review those restrictions? I think particularly of ones that prevail at present in the Army.

I was out on an exercise on HMS Cornwall this week, where men and women were working together as a team very effectively. [Interruption.] Contrary to the slurs cast on them by Conservative Members, they were in extremely good heart and, as one would expect, very professional. Morale was extremely good. Their picture of the armed forces is totally different from Conservative Members' politically motivated slurs.

Does the Minister agree that women play an important role in the armed forces and that, despite what some people think, they play a valuable role too on board ship in close proximity to men? Does he believe that there is a lesson to be learned for those who took a particular view when the Secretary of State made his recent statement?

I am pleased to reinforce what the hon. Gentleman says about the very good role played by women in the armed forces. I was also pleased by the balanced response from the services to the Secretary of State's statement, in which he announced our response to the legal judgment of the European Court of Human Rights.

If he will make an announcement on the preferred bidder for the short-term strategic airlift programme. [104538]

We are assessing proposals from three companies: Boeing, Air Foyle Ltd. and HeavyLift Cargo Airlines Ltd. We shall make an announcement as soon as possible.

I thank the Secretary of State for that reply, but will he guarantee that the RAF will get the aircraft that it wants, not the aircraft that Downing street, for political reasons, decides is convenient? Will he guarantee that the timing will be determined according to strategic necessity, not Treasury pressure? If he is tempted to repeat his earlier allegations about the record of the previous Government, he should recall that, during Labour's previous periods in office, his lot were all unilateralists who wanted to cut our defence budget in half.

Obviously, when considering such important investments, it is necessary to look at all relevant factors, including performance, cost and industrial issues.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the matter has dragged on? He might recollect that, of the three delegations to Ministers that I have led, the first was to see Mr. Jonathan Aitken. The 4,000 airbus workers in my constituency hope that the A400M option is his Ministry's choice. If the C-17 were chosen, it would send to the British aerospace industry the wrong signal about its future. Will my right hon. Friend give the matter his careful consideration, in the knowledge that my constituents would build an extremely good wing for the A400M?

We certainly appreciate the significance of the decision that has to be taken. We fully appreciate the importance of making progress, which is why we are urgently examining ways of enhancing aircraft capability in the short term, as well as in the long term, to which my right hon. Friend refers.

The Secretary of State has said that the decision is an important one. The RAF is looking forward to receiving the aircraft, but will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the RAF equipment budget is overspent? If so, how is it to afford the aircraft?

The RAF equipment budget is not overspent. In assessing carefully the way in which that budget will be allocated, the short-term and longer-term heavy lift requirement will be uppermost in the minds of Ministers.

If he will make a statement on Britain's contribution to European defence and security co—operation. [104539]

The United Kingdom continues to play a leading role in shaping European policy on defence and security matters. The conclusions of the Helsinki European Council in December are fully in line with our European defence initiative, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister launched just over one year ago.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, at a time of growing international uncertainty and worrying signs of global unilateralism in the United States, it is ever more important that European countries co-operate in the cause of effective defence? Does he share my view that although it might be difficult for some countries to increase defence spending, we clearly do not currently obtain the capabilities we should obtain in return for the spending we make? Is there not a strong case for better, more effective use of resources and less duplication among European allies?

I agree with my hon. Friend. NATO Ministers have recognised the need to improve investments in key capability areas. All European nations will need to spend their defence budgets more effectively. Indeed, many are looking to emulate Britain's success and experience with the strategic defence review.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that no one is not in favour of sensible European defence co-operation, or does not agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) about not duplicating resources? However, is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the grave concern, in NATO and elsewhere, that the sort of moves recently proposed by the Prime Minister are likely to lead to some extremely difficult reactions from our NATO colleagues? Is it not far better that NATO arrangements should be left to stand as they are, under NATO command, and that alternative European defence arrangements should be drawn up that do not in any sense conflict with the NATO command structure?

I have made it clear on several occasions on which the issues have been discussed in the House that there will not be any sort of duplication, nor any sort of conflict between proposals made within the European Union context and our obligations under NATO. For many years, NATO Ministers have endorsed that approach because they recognise that, by strengthening the European pillar of NATO, we strengthen NATO as a whole.

The Secretary of State will not have failed to note that Shorts SMS, which was jointly owned by Bombardier and Thomson-CSF, is now fully owned by Thomson-CSF. That should satisfy the Europhiles, who it appears would turn their backs on our United States allies. Will the Minister take note that Shorts SMS has very good relationships with American companies such as Raytheon and that there has been a free transfer of technology to Shorts SMS from some of its American allies? Will he ensure that support for Shorts and the fine work that it is doing continues, despite the persuasion of others that only European relationships are of importance?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity in raising what I take to be if not a specific constituency interest, a more general one on behalf of his constituents. We are greatly concerned to ensure that for British industry, whether it is subcontracting for ultimately American-owned companies or for European or British-owned companies, we take fully into account all the contributions that are made in relation to each and every project. I shall take his observations into account in relation to both the generality and any specific contract that he might have had in mind.

On the matter of European defence policy and co-operation, what role is it envisaged that Britain's nuclear capability will play, and what discussions have Her Majesty's Government had with the French Government in that regard?

The co-operation that we have with our European partners will not affect in any way the use and deployment of Britain's nuclear deterrent. However, there is a long-standing process of discussion and agreement involving the two nuclear nations in Europe. France and Britain have co-operated together. If my right hon. Friend had in mind a particular article that appeared recently in The Spectator, I can assure him that the great majority of it was based on fantasy.

If he will make a statement on the refurbishment of service families' housing. [104540]

We are spending £ 470 million on a comprehensive programme to refurbish service families housing. Currently those families' quarters which have been upgraded total 7,958, or 14 per cent. A further 23,514, or 42 per cent., are close to this standard. The remaining families' quarters are at various stages of upgrade and it is planned that the programme will be complete by the end of 2005.

I thank the Minister for that answer, but does he admit that about £ 11 million has been cut from the budget this year for the much-needed refurbishment of service accommodation? About 30,000 service families are currently living in substandard housing. Is he not concerned about the many vacant houses? For example, at RAF Lyneham in my constituency, there are about 80 houses vacant on a relatively small site. In that context, will he take an early opportunity to have a word with Councillor Mrs. Elizabeth Hitchens, the Liberal Democrat housing chairman on the North Wiltshire district council, who by chance is also a Ministry of Defence employee and the manager of the said 80 empty houses at RAF Lyneham?

I try to avoid talking to Lib Dem housing spokesmen. We have one in the city which I represent in part. The Lib Dems are making a big enough mess there to compensate for everywhere else.

Does the Minister agree that the previous Government's actions, especially on the sale of married quarters, were totally botched and appalling value for money for the taxpayer?

I have to agree with my hon. Friend; the previous Government did a botched-up job. We—including the families who are forced to live in substandard accommodation—have had to pay the price for the deal that the previous Government did, which partly financed tax cuts that the country could not afford. The people who lived in those houses could not afford for money to be dissipated in that way.

The Minister knows that there is a great deal of service accommodation in my constituency. He will recall that in various sessions of Defence questions last year, I raised grave anxieties with the Minister for the Armed Forces about the way in which discussions were conducted between Ministry of Defence officials, especially Defence Estates officials, and officers of my local borough council. They bypassed the interests of elected representatives.

The hon. Gentleman will know that there is a long-standing and well-established procedure of confidentiality in such discussions. I am not sure whether he is clear about the difference between Defence Estates and the Defence Housing Executive. We are firmly committed to ensuring that those who live in substandard housing will live in housing of an appropriate quality by the end of the programme in 2005.

If his Department's targets for efficiency savings and receipts from asset sales have so far been achieved. [104541]

The Ministry of Defence's targets for efficiency improvements and the sale of surplus estate assets cover the period 1998 to 2002, as set out in the Department's public service agreement. The targets for 1998–99 were achieved, with efficiency savings of £594 million against a target of £505 million, and receipts from asset sales of £158 million against a target of £150 million. The Department is on track to meet its targets in this financial year and over the remainder of the PSA period.

I draw the Minister's attention to the comments of Admiral Sir John Brigstocke. He said that £1.5 million, which had been earmarked for the Surgeon General's department, is being wiped out as efficiency savings. In other words, that represents £1.5 million of budget cuts. In the light of that, does the Minister understand the contempt of serving men and women in our armed forces for a Government who are happy to send them into battle zones but do not have the decency to fund the health care that they need when they fall sick?

That was a good try, but wholly misdirected. The claim is untrue. Such a cut has not been made. A letter from the admiral shows that our actions on resources and funding have been understood at the highest level. We are beginning a get well programme. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are trying to rectify the cuts that we inherited. That takes time, and such action has to be balanced against other operational requirements.

The Minister has hinted at part of the problem: the Government inherited a disastrous medical service that had been cut not on the basis of need, but purely to-make savings. Does he agree that we cannot run defence medical services in such a way and that, although it will take a long time, the Government are committed to replacing those services?

It was always anticipated that cuts would be made by the previous Government, but I fear that the real problem was their lack of both coherence and a comprehensive view of the country's defence needs. It is a constant refrain that they made ad hoc cuts in a variety of ways, which had consequences that they never imagined.

Will the Minister make it absolutely clear from the outset that the Prime Minister's press spokesman is wrong and unfair to attack senior military staff for simply leaking documents ahead of budget discussions? That is outrageous. Is not the reality that there have been cuts in housing, fuel and health? The housing programme has slipped by at least three years, the Government cut the fuel budget by 30 per cent. and then had to raise it by 25 per cent., and there was definitely a cut of £1.5 million in the get well programme in their health budget. This morning, they panicked and talked about remedial action with fast-tracking in Portsmouth. Have they talked to Portsmouth health authority, and exactly what waiting list will they damage now?

No, I have not spoken to Portsmouth health authority; and no, I certainly would not question the probity of the Prime Minister's official spokesman—that would take a brave man on this side of the House. I also say no to the hon. Gentleman's assertions about where cuts have allegedly been made. Even if they had been made, I would ask him to say where he would find the money to make up those cuts, which are notional—he has invented them.

If he will make a statement on the reorganisation of defence medical services. [104542]

The reorganisation of defence medical services following the strategic defence review is on track. We have established a close partnership with the Department of Health and with the national health service at local level to manage the transition to new arrangements in the Portsmouth area. As I announced on 13 December 1999, the University Hospital Birmingham NHS trust has been selected as the preferred host for the new centre for defence medicine and we are very excited by the prospects for that vital new development.

Is the Minister aware that this is one problem that the Government cannot wriggle out of by trying to blame somebody else? He who dealt with a shortage of doctors and nurses by closing the one remaining military hospital—Haslar, in my constituency. What will be the cost of developing the new facilities at Birmingham and how do they compare with the cost of building up Haslar, as was planned in defence costs study 15 in 1994? He ought to have those numbers at his fingertips, but if he does not will he write to me in detail?

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman disagrees with his Front-Bench spokesman, who said on the radio this morning:

"You see it would be fair to blame us for cuts that happened as a result of that study".

"Oh I think absolutely … beyond any doubt we recognise that those cuts in the Defence Medical Services had gone too far."

The Minister will recall the report of the Select Committee on Defence in the previous Parliament, which highlighted the Conservative Government's appalling cuts in resources, manpower and equipment. What action have this Government taken and can he assure the House that those cuts will be reversed?

We have already allocated £140 million over four years. It was that which was behind the letter from Admiral Sir John Brigstocke when he said that the situation into which defence medical services had been allowed by the previous Administration to slip had now been recognised at the highest level and that a get well programme was beginning. In addition, there are the other measures to which I have just drawn attention.

Given the Minister's sympathetic response, and accepting that the defence medical services' problems were inherited from the previous Government, as was amply demonstrated by the Select Committee's report, does he agree that the problems of the defence medical services, of overstretch and of procurement, and the other problems that the armed forces now face, simply demonstrate that the world has moved on from the strategic defence review? Is it not time to revisit that review and to match the Government's aspirations with our defence ability?

It was as a result of the strategic defence review that we allocated the extra £140 million to defence medical services, moved towards a centre for defence medicine and, driven by the need for medical accreditation from the royal colleges, moved from Haslar into the arrangement with the Portsmouth Hospitals NHS trust. Those developments are starting to work their way through. One problem with the health service is that it takes much longer to train people and see the results of that compared with some other disciplines. That was the particular problem that resulted from the substantial cuts that were acknowledged by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on the radio this morning.

May we now come to the nub of the matter? Can the Minister explain to the House how it was, when I asked him what had happened to the £1.5 million allocated for orthopaedic waiting lists, that he said in a written answer last Monday that there had been no cut because there had been no allocation—a point that he repeated to the Select Committee? We then discovered that, as long ago as last December, Admiral Sir John Brigstocke had written confirming that there had been an allocation and a cut of £1.5 million. I for one feel misled. Who is right—the admiral or the Minister?

The hon. Gentleman is becoming very excited. It would have helped not only him but the listeners and hon. Members if he had read the full answer that I gave on 17 January. I said:

"Funding to reduce orthopaedic waiting lists … was not removed as part of my Department's efficiency programme as no funds had been allocated … At the beginning of the financial year consideration was given to the possibility of identifying funding to reduce waiting lists, primarily but not exclusively, for orthopaedic treatment. However, this did not prove to be practical, although some additional physiotherapy, provided through a separate initiative, is likely to have affected the numbers on waiting lists overall. The possibility of pursuing action to reduce orthopaedic waiting lists in the next financial year is currently under consideration."— [Official Report, 17 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 284W.]

With what frequency the inventory of materials and equipment carried by Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels is reassessed. [104543]

The inventory of materials and equipment carried by Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels is reassessed and tailored to each operational deployment. Key holdings are also reviewed during major maintenance periods.

I pay tribute to the work of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, but is it not important that the basic inventory of equipment carried by the supply ships should be kept relevant to the operational requirements? If so, and given that warships are often now required to take on a humanitarian role, is it not important that kit and equipment that cannot be carried on a fighting ship are carried on Fort George or Fort Victoria and are available for immediate use?

The hon. Gentleman is right. Inventory ranges carried by RAF vessels are tailored to each deployment. As a result of a number of deployments that we have recently undertaken, a detailed review of humanitarian relief stores is in hand and due for completion in April this year.

What inquiries he has made into the effectiveness of the operation of UK and NATO forces in Kosovo. [104544]

I visited Kosovo shortly before Christmas, meeting and talking to British forces working in KFOR. They have done and continue to do an outstanding job.

Has the Secretary of State read the leaked and highly critical internal report produced by the commander of 5th Airborne Brigade, who suggested that, had KFOR met serious Serb opposition, it would have had big problems? Today, I have been told that Tornado aircraft have been grounded after many sorties in Kosovo and the Gulf because they have run out of spares for their engines. The leaked report says that disproportionate staff effort was expended on MOD spin-doctoring, including bringing out General Jackson to do a job that Ministers should have been doing. In the service of a better defence of this realm, and to cut through the spin-doctoring, will the Secretary of State instigate a full inquiry, so that the House and the country can work out what could have been done better and what changes need to be made?

General Jackson can defend himself far better than I can. I recall some of his observations, which the hon. Gentleman may find relevant. When describing the Kosovo campaign he said that

"to call it a close run thing, frankly, flies in the face of reality."

"I look back and just recall … the entry into Kosovo by KFOR and I think … the record speaks for itself. It was a considerable success."

Did the Secretary of State see the documentary by Jonathan Dimbleby "A Kosovo Journey"? Has he had a chance to read the report by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe entitled "Kosovo/Kosova As Seen, As Told"? If so, does he accept that, since the KFOR occupation, 200,000 non-Albanians have been ethnically cleansed? Those who remain are daily terrorised and killed by the Kosovo Liberation Army. Those are the facts. The Secretary of State's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was slightly complacent, given those facts. When will we have a debate on what is happening at the moment in Kosovo, and when will we have a debate on getting the refugees back to their homes?

I saw the television programme, and we accept that there have been difficulties in encouraging Serbs in particular to return to their homes and their jobs. The international community intervened in Kosovo to provide a multinational opportunity for Kosovo to continue. We do not want a situation to occur in which people are ethnically cleansed, whether they are Albanians or Serbs. The reason why international forces are present on the ground today is largely to protect the Serbian population. As I said, I visited British troops in Pristina, who are there to protect individual Serbs and communities of Serbs. There is absolutely no doubt that the international community is committed to the preservation of a multi-ethnic future for Kosovo.

Will the right hon. Gentleman assure me that the inquiry will include details on the success and failure of some of the high-tech equipment that was used in the Kosovo campaign, and will make recommendations to ensure that such equipment does not fail in future?

A comprehensive account will be given of both the successes and failures of that mission. No military campaign is ever conducted entirely successfully, and we will learn the lessons. We have made it clear that a full account will be made to the House and to the country.

Is it not the case that, whereas previously the Serbians were, as we all know, ethnically cleansing and murdering, the film—which was hostile to what was undertaken to liberate Kosovo—showed British and allied forces doing their utmost to protect them, although of course we would like to see more being done? Is it not also the case that, during the war itself, whenever something went wrong, the Tories used it time and again to try to discredit what was being done? We should be proud of what we did to liberate Kosovo, and there is certainly no need to offer apologies of any kind.

I was not offering an apology. My hon. Friend has put his case with considerable force and passion. British troops are there day in, day out, protecting members of minority communities. They are doing a superb job, and they are there at the behest of the international community to do the work that they are performing so successfully.

As the Secretary of State will know, my colleagues and I believe that the armed forces are doing a fantastic job in Kosovo. They always deliver, as they are expected to do. That, however, is not the question. The question, surely, is whether the Government's drive for efficiency savings had a real impact on their ability to perform in Kosovo.

No, I will not. I remind the hon. Gentleman that British forces went into Kosovo as a peacekeeping operation. Various contingencies were planned for and prepared for, and, had it been necessary to meet armed resistance, British forces would have been equipped for such an eventuality. That, however, was not the case.

"if the matter had had to have gone to offensive ground operations it would have been a quite different force, very much larger, structured for war fighting not for peace implementation."

Yet again, the Secretary of State avoids the answer. The question is not whether the British forces performed well, or would have been able to perform had they been asked to do something different. I have served, and those who have served know that they will do that anyway. The problem arises when a Government policy makes it more difficult for them to do so.

It is not the truth. I shall not repeat the various quotations that I have given about the operation in Kosovo, but the reality is that it was a considerable success. However hard the hon. Gentleman tries to speculate and to dream up various contingencies, he cannot avoid the fact that the operation was completely successful. Had it been necessary to organise it differently, that would have been done.

What progress he has made on the European strategic defence initiative; and if he will make a statement. [104546]

We continue to make excellent progress on European defence.

Can the Secretary of State confirm that the European security and defence identity initiative was launched in Berlin and signed by the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo), a former Conservative Secretary of State for Defence? Is not the extent to which the Conservative party has moved hard to the right demonstrated by the fact that it is opposing an important initiative, which it launched, and which strengthens European and NATO identity and defence capability?

I confirm the factual point about the results of the Berlin summit, where all NATO states signed up to the European security and defence initiative. As for my hon. Friend's further observations, it is a matter of regret that Opposition Front-Bench Members tend to resile from decisions that they previously accepted in government. It may be an indication of their growing anti-Europeanism. Indeed, the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) has a knee-jerk response to anything that contains the word "European."

Does not the Secretary of State's answer show the divorce between appearance and reality? The reality is that all the signatories, including the Government, are cutting defence expenditure, rather than increasing it to meet the grand objectives. Is not the whole scheme more about integration than any military objective?

As I have said frequently—it is something that the hon. Gentleman needs to concentrate on—the policy is about improving European nations' ability to make an effective contribution to NATO, something to which his predecessors agreed and, indeed, signed up. Making the European contribution to NATO more effective will strengthen the ability not only of European nations but of NATO to conduct defence and security activities, of which he should be in favour.

What percentage of the Army (a) is deployed on, (b) is preparing for and (c) has returned in the last month from exercises away from their home base. [104548]

Approximately 4 per cent. of the trained Army is deployed on major exercises away from the home base, or has returned in the last month. In addition, some 30 per cent. of the trained Army is currently committed to operations. That is down from a peak of 47 per cent. at the height of the Kosovo campaign. Once the agreed force reductions in Bosnia have been implemented in full, that figure should fall to 28 per cent., which would be below that inherited from the previous Administration.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and congratulate him and his Department on the improved recruitment figures. However, the Secretary of State referred earlier to the continuing problem of retention. A £12 million package of allowances and bonuses was announced last year, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is important for the armed forces to develop better family friendly policies, bringing families together whenever possible and increasing leave if possible? May I also make a plea for better counselling services for members of the armed forces who have problems?

I thank my hon. Friend for that question and for identifying the problems of those who are overstretched by operations. We recognise the pressures that it puts on the individuals involved. That is why, as he has rightly identified, we have increased bonuses and provided 28 days leave at the end of six months deployment. We also recognise the importance of contact between service men and women out in the field and their families back home. That is why we have introduced 20 minutes telephone time to home, a fourfold increase from the previous figure.

Does the Minister have any ideas to place before the House on how it might be possible to ensure that, once actions involving front-line military forces have been completed, those front-line forces are not retained on peacekeeping duties in which the United Kingdom's investment in their skills and training is under-utilised?

We are very sensitive to problems of having to back-fill into various units, which is precisely why we have taken various actions both to increase recruitment and to improve retention, and to maintain the right balance. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular example in mind, I am sure that he could write to me on it. We should then be pleased to examine the matter.