What plans he has for the Royal Army Medical Corps to occupy the buildings of Staff College, Camberley; and if he will make a statement. [109394]

We are examining a number of options for the future location of headquarters elements of the Army medical services, including the possible use of the Staff College building in Camberley. I hope to be in a position to make an announcement shortly.

I am grateful for that confirmation. The Under-Secretary's officials may have briefed him that the local press in my constituency has announced the decision as if it had been made. I hope that he will ensure that when his officials talk to officers, elected councillors and the press in my constituency, they provide accurate information at every stage.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that his questions, which are always polite and well phrased, if over long, would have had no influence on my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle).

What progress has been made in the Government's plans to procure replacements for the current Invincible class of aircraft carriers. [109395]

Competitive contracts, each worth about £30 million, for the future aircraft carrier assessment phase were awarded on 23 November to BAe Land and Sea Systems, now BAe Systems, and Thomson-CSF Naval Combat Systems. The assessment phase will investigate options for carrier design and, by 2003, will deliver proposals for the demonstration and manufacture of the vessels. The carriers, which will be built in the United Kingdom at a likely cost of £2 billion, are scheduled to enter service in 2012 and 2015.

Will my right hon. Friend explain the strategic thinking behind the decision to build 40,000 and 50,000-tonners, and set out the consequences for naval planning? What are the employment and industrial consequences for our regional shipyards? Will my right hon. Friend explain the timing and say when the decision will be implemented? On a less serious note, will one of those great aircraft carriers take the A400M? We do not want the C-17; we want the A400M heavy lifter.

I recall congratulating my right hon. Friend on his ingenuity on the last occasion we met for Defence questions. He managed then to introduce a relevant constituency element into his question and he has done so again. I am not likely to delay the specification of any aircraft carrier to take the A400M. My right hon. Friend will probably understand that.

I, too, should like to know what sort of aircraft will be flown from the carriers. If they are to succeed the successful Harrier, with vertical or short take-off and landing—VSTOL—or short take-off and vertical landing—STOVL—capabilities, and perhaps be a variation on the joint strike fighter, surely a long vessel is not required. It might be more economic to refit our existing three aircraft carriers than to build two Goliaths.

I was following the hon. Gentleman's thoughtful contribution until he made his last observation. We have committed ourselves to two new carriers, which will have more capability than the existing vessels. It would be unfortunate if any Government went back on such an undertaking.

As you and I know, Madam Speaker, the people of Portsmouth are interested in the berthing of those two magnificent ships and their future victualling. They must be prepared for in advance and a lot of studies on quays and support facilities are usually carried out. As no research at all has been done in Portsmouth, may I take it that it has been written off as a home port for the two ships?

Absolutely not. Portsmouth is a vital port for the Royal Navy and will continue to be so, but as my hon. Friend will have heard in my answer to the substantive question, those vessels do not come into service until 2012 and 2015. I assure him and the House that the investigation of berthing facilities at Portsmouth will continue as a matter of urgency in order to meet those two dates.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to deny clearly and unambiguously the serious report in Warship World—which he knows is generally a well-informed magazine—to the effect that the Government are considering withdrawing HMS Invincible from service rather than giving it the refit that it will need? Contrary to all their public assurances, they have a covert plan to reduce our carrier fleet to two—long before the new large carriers are even contracted for. I shall give him a copy of the report, and hope that today the House can be told authoritatively exactly what the Government's plans are.

I begin by welcoming the hon. Gentleman to his new post on the Opposition Front Bench. I am sure that he will bring to the defence team a welcome enthusiasm for European matters. I only wish that it were possible to participate in the team meetings when he and his colleagues discuss them.

If he will make a statement on the future of British Forces Post Office at Mill Hill. [109396].

The future structure and location of the British Forces Post Office United Kingdom base is under review as part of my Department's strategic development plan for Greater London.

The review has been under way for a considerable time and is causing uncertainty and disquiet among the staff—both civilian and uniformed personnel—at Mill Hill. When is it likely to be completed, and can my hon. Friend give me the assurance that it will take into account the excellent work done by BFPO at Mill Hill? It delivered millions of letters and parcels over Christmas well within the performance criteria and makes a major contribution to the morale of our service personnel overseas.

I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the loyalty and dedication of the military and civilian staff at BFPO—they are vital to the agency's success—and he and I went to see it for ourselves. Following the study, we hope to be able to make a decision about BFPO's future in late summer.

Will the Minister accept from me that support for the safe and secure service provided by BFPO is widespread on both sides of the House? Is he aware in particular that it is a matter of the utmost importance to me for the simple reason that my mother lives in the Mill Hill area? Will he also accept from me that tolerating representation by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) is sufficient burden for her to bear—she does so with dignity and stoicism? Does the Minister agree that it would be monstrous to deprive her of that admirable facility, of which she is a longstanding supporter?

I see that Conservative Members are very sensitive in declaring interests these days. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the excellent service and the staff at Mill Hill. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), they are critical to the success of a much-appreciated agency. As part of the restructuring of our service estate in the London area, we are considering how best to provide that service. Key considerations in making that decision will be the maintenance of continuity of service and the enormous loyalty and dedication shown by those staff.

If it is the Government's policy that Britain should continue to possess a nuclear deterrent as long as other countries have nuclear weapons. [109397]

Britain's minimum nuclear deterrent is a necessary element of the security of this country, particularly while large nuclear arsenals and risks of proliferation remain. That was a key conclusion of the Government's strategic defence review. When we are satisfied that sufficient progress has been made to allow us to include British nuclear weapons in negotiations without endangering our security interests, we shall do so.

That goes three quarters of the way towards answering the question, but not the whole way.

I have set out the Government's position. It is the position on which Labour Members were elected at the last general election, and it remains the position that the Government will adopt.

Speaking of this country's nuclear deterrent capability, my right hon. Friend will know of the letter sent by his colleague Baroness Symons to those of us who represent constituencies surrounding the atomic weapons establishment at Aldermaston. In the light of the decision to award a future 10-year management contract at AWE Aldermaston to a consortium including British Nuclear Fuels plc, and following revelations of the deliberate falsification of nuclear data, does my right hon. Friend agree that the decision to award the contract to that consortium is in urgent need of review? Many of my constituents would prefer Homer Simpson to run AWE Aldermaston rather than have BNFL.

I am aware of the letter. As my hon. Friend will know, we have instructed the Chief of Defence Procurement to examine the terms and conditions of the contract to ensure the pre-eminence of public health and environmental safety as they affect the workers at the facility, and also the general public. We have also insisted that BNFL nominations to the new AWE top management team are free of any connection with the incidents noted in the report by the Department of Trade and Industry.

Does the Secretary of State realise that serious queries are arising about the safety consciousness of two of the three firms that make up the consortium to which he has just granted the new contract to run Aldermaston: Lockheed Martin and BNFL? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my constituents and those living close to the site will be appalled by the thought that, in future, their safety could be in the hands of those two companies?

I have described the steps that we have taken, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his constituents will be satisfied with the concern that has already been expressed.

Surely the sophistical arguments of the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) about our possible ultimate negotiating stance in putative negotiations that have not even reached the planning stage yet are about as relevant as debating angels dancing on pinheads. Would it not be better to concentrate on encouraging the ratification of the START 2 treaty and to begin meaningful multilateral negotiations, lest we end up joining the angels?

My hon. Friend raises the alarming prospect of the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) dancing on a pinhead. On his more serious point, he is right. What is important is that we encourage, disarmament, particularly nuclear disarmament, where we can. The Government are committed to that and will use their influence in the world to achieve it.

In considering the future of nuclear deterrence, is it not right to give some regard to the proposal from the United States that it should deploy some form of national missile defence? Is it not clear that the United States intends to deploy some form of national missile defence, even against the reservations of its European allies and even if it means breaching the anti-ballistic missile treaty of 1972?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman should know that there is no specific proposal as yet from the United States. The Government have been in close touch with the United States Administration on the question. President Clinton will not decide on deployment before next summer.

If we are to continue with possession of the nuclear deterrent, it will be right and proper that the House ensures that the highest safety standards are followed on the maintenance and transportation of such weaponry, especially where submarines that carry nuclear weapons travel through traditional fishing grounds. Will my right hon. Friend confirm here and now that there was no nuclear submarine in the vicinity of the sinking of the Kirkcudbright scallop dredger, the Solway Harvester, because many people in Scotland believe that the vessel went down with the loss of its seven-man crew because it was in collision with another vessel, perhaps a nuclear submarine?

I can assure my hon. Friend that no nuclear vessel was in the vicinity at the relevant time.

Further to the question from the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), are not the Government in a wobble over the whole position on ballistic missile defence? The Secretary of State's predecessor, Lord Robertson, said:

"We are not in favour of developing ballistic missile defence systems"—[Official Report, 10 May 1999; Vol. 331, c. 10.],

The specific answer to the hon. Gentleman's final question is no. Let me repeat what I have already told the House: as yet, we have had no specific request from the United States Government and they have not yet decided whether to go ahead with national missile defence. Our position is clear.

What about Menwith Hill?

If the hon. Gentleman investigated the role and responsibilities of that establishment a little more closely, he would discover that it would go ahead regardless of whether national missile defence goes ahead. Menwith Hill will play an important role in detecting the launch of ballistic missiles anywhere in the world. It is an entirely sensible step in its own right.

The Secretary of State is all over the place on the issue. His predecessor, Lord Robertson, said that the ABM treaty was one of the pioneering forerunners of arms control legislation, yet as recently as the end of last year, Baroness Symons said:

"Interpretation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty is a matter for the parties to that treaty."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 October 1999; Vol. 606, c. WA6.]

The Soviet Union and its successor, Russia, are signatories to the ABM treaty. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that there have been two significant amendments to the treaty, one of which was made in 1997, long after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The fact that the parties to the treaty might wish to enter into negotiations with a view to a further amendment can hardly be a surprise to him or to anyone else.

It is clear that the Government are scared not only of their Back Benchers but of their new co-habitees in the European security and defence identity, the French Government. President Chirac has said:

"We must avoid any questioning of the ABM Treaty that could lead to a disruption of the strategic equilibrium and a new nuclear arms race."

The hon. Gentleman is getting ever more desperate as he tries to find some substance for his questions. Let us deal with Menwith Hill. It is the European relay ground system of the United States space-based infra-red system, designed to detect the launch of ballistic missiles. It is regarded by the United States as necessary, irrespective of any decision on a national missile defence programme. The hon. Gentleman would do well not to keep referring to Menwith Hill, because it does not make his case, whatever it is—although the more I listen to him, the harder it is to detect what his argument is about.

I call Mr. Eric Forth for question No. 5. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is not here."] In that case I call Mr. Tam Dalyell.

What scientific evaluation was made (a) in 1991 and (b) subsequently of the effects on UK troops of friendly fire involving depleted uranium munitions; and if he will make a statement. [109400]

Obviously, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is keener to turn up late at night to talk about irrelevancies than to come and deal with the real business of the House.

As a member of an incoming Administration, is my hon. Friend entitled to know all the facts of what was, or was not, asked on depleted uranium in 1991?

I am not entirely sure of the context in which my hon. Friend asks that question. In answer to a previous question that he posed in this regard, I said:

"The US Department of Defense informs us that there is no 'US Army Depleted Uranium Assessment Unit'. The Ministry of Defence is not aware of any 'friendly fire' incidents during which British troops were injured or killed by depleted uranium-based ammunition during the Gulf conflict."—[Official Report, 10 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 90W.]

If he will make a statement on the development of family-friendly working practices within the armed services. [109402]

The key family-friendly policies for the services are to provide adequate time for family life and, during deployment, the ability for family members to communicate with each other. We have reduced the number deployed on operations, introduced post-operational tour leave and a bonus payment for those experiencing the greatest separation, and increased the welfare telephone allowance from three to 20 minutes per week. That is an impressive record of achievement.

I want to acknowledge the tremendous sacrifices that our armed services staff and their families make on our behalf. What steps is my hon. Friend taking to encourage staff to take up their new entitlements to parental leave and to time off in family emergencies, both of which were recently introduced by the Government?

Armed forces personnel are entitled to parental leave, as allowed for in the parental leave directive. It is service practice, operations permitting, to allow personnel to take paid annual leave to attend childbirth. On family emergencies, the armed forces have an excellent compassionate system in place that is specifically designed to deal with serious family emergencies; it can include both paid leave and free travel back home.

In that seemingly impressive list of measures to help families, where would the Minister put the £11 million cut in the budget for repairing married quarters, coming as it did just after a study had shown that the backlog of repairs is much worse than was previously thought?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman drew attention to the backlog of repairs, which was overlooked by the Conservative Government, who, in the rushed sale of property to Annington Homes, underestimated the amount required to bring the properties up to category 1 by £112 million. That has led to the stretching of the programme to 2005. We have been able to put some additional money back into the programme in the past few weeks. The hon. Gentleman should really look to the people who previously occupied the Government Benches. I regret to say that he backed out on that argument in the end.

What account is taken of the previous convictions of applicants to the armed services in deciding whether to recruit them. [109403]

Each service has slightly different regulations concerning such applicants. In general, the armed forces accept inquiries from young minor offenders who have completed the rehabilitation period in accordance with the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 after they have served their sentence. Each case is considered on its merits.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the armed services have a role to play in giving ex-offenders who want to go straight the opportunity of proving that they are capable of doing so?

Yes, subject to the qualification that they have to be acceptable to the armed forces and that there must be evidence that they have genuinely changed their ways and will not be a bad influence. As I have said previously from the Dispatch Box, we believe that people have a right to repair the mistakes that they have made, subject to that being consistent with the interests of the armed forces. We believe that many such youngsters will make good soldiers, sailors and airmen, which will be good for the country and very good for them and their families.

If he will provide extra funding for Army, Air and Sea Cadets and bring forward proposals to increase recruitment to the cadet services. [109404]

My Department has provided more than £58 million in funding for the Army, Air and Sea Cadets in the current financial year, as well as over £6 million for the Combined Cadet Force. In 1998, we made an extra £3 million available over four years to pay for enhancements to training, equipment and infrastructure following the strategic defence review. The cadet forces undertake their own recruitment, with practical support from the services wherever possible. The total number of cadets has increased steadily each year, and we expect to see a continuation of that trend.

Will the Minister confirm that the numbers of service men and women are still under strength across all the armed forces? Bearing in mind the fact that the cadet movement is a good recruiting ground, does he not agree that it would be good sense and good value for money to invest more in our cadets for recruitment purposes, and—in the spirit of joined-up government—for purposes of social inclusion, dealing with the causes of crime and giving our young people things to do other than be in the classroom the whole time?

I am tempted just to answer yes, Madam Speaker, because I know that you favour short questions and answers. Alas, I am sorry to disappoint you, although my answer will be short. Between March and September 1999, the number of Army Cadets rose to 42,114, the highest for 10 years, in the wake of the "Attitude" campaign. Numbers in other cadet forces are also at satisfactory levels and, generally speaking, the extra money that we have put in is bearing fruit.

My hon. Friend may not have been in his post long enough to understand what a superb job the Navy cadets do in my constituency with Training Ship Forward. They contribute tremendously to the development of the service ethic among young people, as well as contributing to every civic occasion in the town. My hon. Friend will be aware that the funding arrangements for the Sea Cadets are not the same as for the other services, and that is presenting us with problems in finding a long-term base for them. Will he have discussions with his colleagues in other Departments to see if improvements can be made in the funding regime?

We would be prepared to look at that. It has not been our practice in the past to provide direct support, for example, for accommodation. However, we give the Sea Cadets much non-cash support, for example through the loan of sailing craft and small powered craft.

I wonder whether the Minister can tell me—or perhaps he could write to me—about the rehousing of the Army, Air and Sea Cadets in Shirley in my constituency, who have traditionally paraded at the Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve centre that his Department is closing.

I will clearly have to write to the hon. Gentleman about the detail of the question, although I can say that when closures occur, we do our best to re-accommodate the cadet forces involved, as should be the case in Shirley.

When he last met the Army Families Federation to discuss married quarters. [109406]

I last met the Army Families Federation on 16 November 1999 when I chaired the second families forum of the service families task force.

I wish to ask the Minister about married quarters and I hope that he will not give the sort of party political reply that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), because there is much concern about the subject. Has the Minister read the Defence Committee's report on married quarters? Has he noticed that the last thing that service men want when they go abroad is to return to dilapidated married quarters? Has he noted the conclusions of the Committee's report—remembering that his party has a majority on the Committee—that

"We have been provided with insufficient evidence for us to be sure that this area is not subject to budgetary squeeze simply because it is an easy target."

As I said to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), we will spend some £112 million more than was budgeted for by the previous Government after their rapid sale to Annington in an attempt to balance the budget for the pre-election exercise. We are aware of the needs of married quarters and of single living accommodation, which is another area of considerable neglect that we inherited.

May I invite the Minister to stop blustering about what happened five years ago and get on with finding proper housing for our service men and women and their families? Regardless of the reasons for the slippage that has occurred, it is unacceptable to try to save £2 million a year by cutting back on new carpets and curtains. The lack of appropriate quarters is a major factor in our inability to retain armed forces personnel. I accept that recruitment is not doing badly, but if he continues with the present policy, the Minister will do nothing but harm in the matter of retaining personnel in our armed forces.

I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention once again to the considerable shortfall that we inherited. In addition to refurbishing existing property, we are letting a number of private finance initiative contracts to build new housing. Those initiatives involve building 279 properties at Lossiemouth, 88 at Yeovilton, 145 at Cosford and Shawbury, and 164 in central Scotland. That high-quality housing is highly appreciated, and considerable work is also being done in other areas. I fully agree that some properties are unacceptable as married quarters for our service families. However, much of the available housing is good, and the improvements that have been made are greatly appreciated. Considerable sums of money are being devoted to the problem—some £112 more than had been budgeted for after the previous Administration's fire sale to Annington Homes.

How much his Department spent in each of the last three years on ammunition for each of the armed services. [109407]

In financial years 1996–97, 1997–98 and 1998–99, we spent some £173 million, £168 million and £152 million respectively procuring ammunition for the Army. Equivalent figures for the Royal Navy were £122 million, £115 million and £148 million, and for the Royal Air Force, £96 million, £157 million and £241 million. These figures cover the costs, at historic prices, associated with the procurement of lethal munitions, including small, medium, and large-calibre gun ammunition, grenades, mortar bombs, rockets, guided missiles, and torpedoes.

Is the amount of ammunition provided for training purposes larger or smaller than it was three years ago?

As far as I know, the amount has remained roughly constant, but I shall certainly look into the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman.

Given the amount of money involved, will the Minister ensure that the Government continue to meet procurement needs in the UK, and that Britain does not become reliant on other countries in that regard?

Clearly, I cannot give my hon. Friend any guarantees on that. Each case will be considered on its merits. Our main emphasis is on securing value for money and high quality. Within those constraints, we shall certainly endeavour, wherever possible, to source materials in this country.

What plans his Department has to improve its network of defence attachés. [109410]

As part of the work following on from the strategic defence review, a comprehensive review of the distribution of defence attachés has been carried out. The outcome was agreed between the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office at the end of last year, and the resultant new distribution of attachés is being implemented from 1 April 2000 over a two-year period.

Does my hon. Friend agree that defence diplomacy, especially with the aim of conflict prevention in central Europe and in Africa, is among the strategic defence review's crucial priorities, and that it has need of further attention? Does he share my view that greater civilian and democratic control of the armed forces in those countries should be a priority for the Department? Will he assure me that, unlike the Conservative Government, this Government will fund such work properly?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I confirm that extra funding to the tune of £2.5 million a year has been made available for that initiative.

But where are the defence attachés going to live? There are still many parts of the world—especially in the former Soviet Union—where our representatives operate out of other embassies. Were it not for the help offered by the Germans and the Scandinavians, we would not have representatives in the former Soviet Union. Has the Minister spoken to the Foreign Secretary, who has announced that he is to reduce British representation overseas?

That seems a cost-effective way of providing accommodation! Seriously, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we take the greatest care in ensuring that our employees are properly looked after when they are abroad.

If he will make a statement about his Department's plans to procure four roll on/roll off container ships. [109412]

The strategic defence review confirmed the requirement for an expanded sealift capability of six roll on/roll off ships—four in addition to the two currently on charter—to transport equipment for our joint rapid reaction forces. We are seeking to provide the capability under private finance initiative arrangements, and intend to announce a single preferred bidder later this year.

My right hon. Friend confirmed that the building of the roll on/roll off ships is an essential part of the full implementation of the strategic defence review. He will be aware that the River Clyde has a great history of shipbuilding, but that recently, shipbuilding on the Clyde has become vulnerable to uncompetitive pricing practices, particularly from elsewhere. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that, in the selection of a preferred bidder for the ships, a full and open competition will take place, and that full account will be taken of the bid by the Sealion consortium, led by the Govan yard?

I can confirm the requirement for roll on/roll off ferries. As far as the Clyde is concerned, the Government are very pleased that the ownership of the Govan shipyard has been settled. Scottish shipyards such as Govan have historically made a vital contribution to shipbuilding in this country, and I hope that they will continue to play an important role. Certainly, there will be a full and open competition. Obviously, it is vital to the interests of the British taxpayer that we secure the best value-for-money order available.

I welcome the commitment that six roll on/roll off ferries will be available as part of our strategic lift capability. However, it would be rather odd if such measures were set alongside measures to reduce Fearless to the reserve; to place a further three frigates and destroyers into the reserve; to put four Hunt class MCMVs to reserve; to put three Sandown class MCMVs to reserve; to lay up three further Royal Fleet Auxiliaries; and to bring home Dumbarton Castle from the Falkland islands. I understand, on authoritative briefing from within the Ministry of Defence, that all those measures are being considered to deal with a bloodstained long-term costings process as a result of the fact that the Ministry does not have enough money to support the defence budget in a sensible fashion.

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman, who has considerable knowledge of the way in which the Ministry of Defence operates, should choose to highlight the most speculative source of information with which I have so far had to deal. The hon. Gentleman knows better than that: he knows that, necessarily, a whole series of options is canvassed and that against those options, real decisions are taken. I assure him that no real decision along the lines of his speculation has been taken. I also assure him, as I assure other hon. Members, that when decisions are taken the House will be the first to hear—and rather before spurious pieces are published in whatever publication.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that when the Minister of State, Scotland Office replied to me in a recent Adjournment debate, he reaffirmed that Scotland offers support for Govan's Sealion bid? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that Govan shipyard is ready to work immediately on this order?

I am grateful for that personal commitment. I anticipate that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar) will be down there in the event of the contract being awarded to that particular shipyard. However, it is a competitive process, and it is necessary for the Government, in the interests of the taxpayers, to choose the best value-for-money offer.

How many serving members of the armed forces are aged under 18 years; and if he will make a statement on their deployment. [109413]

As at January 2000, 6,238 personnel under 18 were serving in the armed forces. The vast majority of personnel under 18 are situated in the UK. Of those overseas, there are 114 in Germany; 23 in the Former Republic of Yugoslavia; 15 in Cyprus; 12 in the Falkland islands; and seven on ships in the Gulf. I stress that they are all volunteers and have parental consent to join the armed forces.

Have any of the 17-year-olds who are allowed to be deployed on active service in the armed forces in Britain been victims in armed conflict? Have any of them been killed or injured in conflict during the past 20 years?

I fear that I should have required notice of my hon. Friend's question to reply to it today. I shall write to her.

Will the Minister confirm that many of those recruited at 16 are among the Army's most successful recruits? What discussions has he held with the German Foreign Minister on the matter?

I must confess that I have had no discussions with the German Foreign Minister on that matter or any other—and who is he at the moment? [Interruption.] I know.

What plans he has to update the strategic defence review with regard to numbers of personnel [109414]

There are no plans to change the manpower requirements for each of the three services identified during the strategic defence review.

Following the Ministry's recent recruiting initiatives, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that retention remains an increasingly serious problem? Will he confirm that a net figure of about 100 people a month leave the Army? How can he say that the Government are addressing and eliminating overstretch? Even at this late stage, will he not review the decision to cut the Territorial Army by 18,000, the reversal of which would be one of the most cost-effective measures he could take?

It is no longer true that there is a net outflow from the Army. It was the case, but the situation has been turned around, and there is now a net inflow of about 30 people a month. The Government's policy has been successful. Recruiting has reached record levels lately. For example, Royal Marines officer posts are over-subscribed and we cannot satisfy all those who wish to join. In addition, the general services in the Royal Marines are expected to meet their target for the first time since 1994. We are doing well on recruitment.

If he will make a statement on the progress of the Government's learning forces initiative. [109415]

We are making good progress with our learning forces initiative. It will encourage people to join the services, develop them once they have joined and equip them for the civilian employment market when they leave.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the scheme should be properly funded so that it may help service men make a more successful transition to civilian life? As more than £1 billion a year is spent by the armed forces on education and training, does my right hon. Friend agree that more of that pot of money should be allocated to enhancing the scheme?

I am confident that appropriate sums are made available to the scheme, which is not just about assisting people to make the transfer to civilian life, but about improving basic key skills for the least able recruits, offering all personnel the opportunity to gain level 2 national vocational qualifications within three years of joining the services and introducing standard learning credits with awards of up to £175 a year to members of the armed forces to help them to advance personal development through academic or practical study. The initiative is not just about the transition to civilian life, although that is important. It seeks to improve the ability and qualifications of members of our armed services while they are in the services.

If he will make a further statement on the future of the old and new ranges at Shoeburyness. [109416]

As my predecessor informed the House on 28 January, the whole of the old ranges and Horseshoe barracks, Shoeburyness, were sold, subject to contract, on 20 January 2000. As for the new ranges, the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency is now working with SERCO Ltd. to rationalise the estate and to introduce new business to co-exist with the continuing range activities, which may require the release of a small amount of land. DERA plans to brief the local community on that subject in early March and then jointly to agree a way forward.

Is the Minister aware that members of the local community in Shoeburyness are a little disturbed because, although the site of the old ranges was sold in January, they have still not been told who bought it? Although we were given the strongest assurances from both DERA and SERCO that they would keep the local community advised about the new ranges, there have been no meetings so far. Will the hon. Gentleman take a personal interest in the issue; will he try to ensure that the local community is told what is happening; and, if need be, will he speak at a public meeting in Shoeburyness to tell the local community exactly what is happening with two delightful and very valuable sites?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that we cannot make an announcement until the contracts are signed and everything is properly closed. I have the greatest sympathy for his constituents in the present situation. I shall do everything in my power to expedite the appropriate development of the site.

Will my hon. Friend tell me how many contracts SERCO has in the Ministry of Defence?

A very large, positive integer.

How much of the food purchased for the armed forces is sourced from abroad. [109418]

The supply of food for our armed forces was contracted out by the previous Administration. The agreement does not specify the source from which our contractors should obtain products, but expects them to seek the best market price, consistent with meeting our quality standard, while giving full consideration to British products. Our main food supply contract is with 3663: it is sourcing a range of more than 1,300 different products for the armed forces, including fresh, chilled and frozen commodities. The company advises that about 26 per cent. of those are currently imported. Included in that figure are products which are not made or grown in this country.

Will the Minister explain why so much of our food is sourced from abroad? I accept that, in certain cases when the armed forces are abroad for a period, it is more appropriate to source the food locally. However, we have moved on: the Minister's party is in government. Will he explain why, when the French will not eat our beef, we are forcing our armed forces to take £1 million-worth of French chickens? Does he agree that, when the French will not eat our beef, it is hard for us to swallow the fact that we are forcing our armed forces to eat their chickens?

As the hon. Gentleman can tell from looking at me, it is plain that I have little difficulty in swallowing anything.

What plans he has for increasing work-based training and education for young people in the armed forces. [109422]

All three services are actively involved in a range of projects designed to improve access to training and education at the workplace, as follow-on work to our learning forces initiative. That involves considerable and widespread investment in interactive learning facilities and in computers with internet access. However, those measures are not targeted specifically at young people; they are aimed at all members of the armed forces.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Has he held any discussions with his ministerial colleagues at the Department for Education and Employment about the proposed new connection service? Will he ensure that the education and training benefits of a career in the armed forces will be fairly presented to those young people who avail themselves of that service?

I am pleased to say that we are co-operating very well with the Department for Education and Employment, not only in this area but also very much in the area of craft apprenticeships within our establishment. We certainly believe that, as a result of this and other initiatives, the armed forces provide an excellent career for young people, and we hope that the Department for Education and Employment and education authorities throughout the country will help to get that message across.