What recent representations he has received on the proposed US national missile defence system and its effects on the UK. [127255]

We have received a number of representations recently on the proposed US national missile defence system. The United States President has not yet decided whether to begin deployment of the proposed system. We would not expect a request for the use of facilities in the United Kingdom until after any such decision has been made. We have made it clear that we would consider such a request carefully in the light of circumstances at the time, including the implications for the defence of the UK.

May I ask the Secretary of State to cast his mind back to May, when the five declared nuclear powers—all of whom are permanent members of the Security Council—stated as their long-term aim the global elimination of nuclear weapons and total disarmament? Does he not think that the American proposal for a national missile defence system, with outlying stations based in the Pacific ocean and the UK, is not only an escalation of the danger of nuclear conflict, but flies in the face of the non-proliferation treaty? Instead of waiting for what President Clinton may or may not decide on Friday, on the basis of whatever tests are going forward, should we not say—here and now—that we shall have no part in any global extension of nuclear weapons or nuclear missile defence systems, but that we shall work wholeheartedly for worldwide nuclear disarmament? Does he not think that the proposed siting at Fylingdales in Yorkshire turns this country, once again, into a nuclear aircraft carrier for the US?

No, he does not. My hon. Friend is getting rather ahead of events. As yet, there is no US proposal as such. The US has not taken a decision and has not made any formal request to the UK. In those circumstances, I do not need to answer his question about Fylingdales.

Is the right hon. Gentleman clear about the nature of the long-term threats that motivated the US Congress to pass its national missile defence Act? Does he consider that such threats might apply also to this country and to Europe? Is he aware that the technological and aerospace committee of the Western European Union, together with his hon. Friends the Members for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) and for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) and myself, is visiting the US in two weeks' time precisely to investigate those issues and to report back to the Assembly?

The UK recognises US concerns about the threat—specifically that posed in the short term by North Korea. That is why there is a differential reaction in Europe. Inevitably, North Korea could not threaten Europe in the short term. Our current assessment is that there is no significant threat to the UK from weapons of mass destruction. However, I must emphasise that we continue to monitor developments closely. Obviously, we must have regard to the protection of UK interests should such a threat emerge.

Does the Secretary of State really believe that there is a serious threat to Seattle from North Korea, when North Korea has trouble with the missiles it has targeted on South Korea? At this time of rapprochement, does that not mean that what is going on is not a perceived threat, but the perceived greed of the American defence industry, which wants to make more profits from a new arms race which will impoverish the planet even more and put us in great danger? The Secretary of State said that he had received no formal approach from the US. What approaches has he received?

I do not accept the way in which my hon. Friend puts his question. It is not for the UK to make assessments of the degree of threat perceived by the US, but there is a widespread recognition that North Korea is developing a capability that would undoubtedly pose a threat to the US. As for our position, it remains that we do not identify a current threat to the UK. However, it is important both that we monitor the situation and that we ensure that the UK's interests are properly protected.

I have some sympathy for the Secretary of State—I hope that he will accept that remark in the spirit in which it was meant. On one side of him are the US Government and his own Ministry of Defence, who tell him that there is a serious threat and a need to show some leadership on the matter because of the threat from rogue states. On the other side are his own Foreign Office, led by the two CND supremos, his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), and the French Government who are utterly opposed to the proposal. Now we hear that most of his Back Benchers give him no support either. Do we not have the right to expect Her Majesty's Government to show some leadership in this matter—as they would traditionally have done—and to make up their minds? Instead of that, they twist and turn, leaving us with one simple policy, Mr. Micawber's view—they hope something will turn up.

I anticipate that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) would take as a criticism the statement that he represented the majority of Labour Back Benchers. Let me make it clear that the Government continue to monitor carefully developments of the situation. As yet, there have been no specific or formal requests from the US. There is no division of opinion in the Government on our approach to such matters. It is vital that we should give support to the US, if necessary, while recognising—as the US has done—that it is for the international community to decide on these matters and to make its views known to the US before any decision is taken to deploy.

What progress has been made since the Helsinki summit in improving European defence co-operation. [127256]

The package of measures endorsed by EU leaders at the recent Feira summit marks further practical progress on the European defence policy. In particular, we have successfully taken forward the commitment to improving European capabilities made at Helsinki, and agreed proposals to develop a close European Union-NATO relationship which recognises the key role of European allies that are not members of the EU.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the recent statements made by Strobe Talbott, a member of the Senate Defence Committee? He said that

the US is for ESDI.

I believe that the Government are right, with the French, to try to encourage our fellow Europeans to act together in humanitarian and peacekeeping tasks. I do not see that enterprise as a challenge or rival to NATO.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have great difficulty in understanding why the Opposition persist in decrying this development because any sensible commentator—my hon. Friend has mentioned some—undoubtedly recognises that strengthening the Europeans' contribution to NATO means that NATO itself will be stronger. I do not understand why Opposition Members have difficulty with that concept unless it has something to do with their knee-jerk opposition these days to anything to do with the European Union. In case it does, may I remind them of at least part of their policy? The European democrat group, of which the Conservative party is a member, has said:

We want to have a defence policy in Europe…If we talk about European defence and if we put it into the Treaties then we must be able to fill it out and give it substance so we can have a capability available.

Can the Secretary of State give the House the assurance that any European defence identity will proceed on the basis of an intergovernmental and not a supranational legal basis?

Yes, I can give that assurance. I assume that, as a former member of the European democrat group, the hon. Lady will approve of the policy that the Government have set out.

How many British troops are deployed in Sierra Leone. [127258]

More than 300 UK military personnel are currently deployed on the ground in Sierra Leone. These include members of the short-term training team, lead elements of the UK-led international military advisory and training team, support and protection elements, the British military liaison officer, and members of the United Nations mission in Sierra Leone and of the Department for International Development-sponsored Sierra Leone security sector reform project. In addition, HMS Argyll and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Sir Percivale have crews totalling some 240 personnel.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. May I express the appreciation of my constituents—some of whom have relatives in Sierra Leone and others have simply expressed concern about the situation there—for the role that our troops have been playing? Will he advise the House what progress is being made to deal with the illegal diamond trade which is perceived by many as fuelling the civil war?

rose—

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) for his offer of help.

What progress is being made in achieving the target for disposal of surplus assets contained in the strategic defence review. [127259]

In the past two financial years, more than £400 million has been realised from the sale of surplus property assets. We are fully on course to achieve the £700 million target for gross receipts which is set out in the strategic defence review. The Defence Logistics Organisation was set a target to reduce the book value of spares holdings by some 20 per cent., and is on target to meet that by 2001.

I thank the Secretary of State for that reply and congratulate the MOD on achieving its target. May I further congratulate my right hon. Friend on the estates strategy that has recently been published? My constituency has a long military history and therefore significant MOD assets. I noted a strong commitment to sustainability in the strategy. The MOD has announced—I have no criticism of it—that it intends to dispose of Saighton camp on the rural fringe of my constituency. I therefore seek an assurance that it will conduct a full environmental impact assessment, as promised in the strategy, and consult local planning authorities prior to the disposal of that asset.

I was about to say that I suspect—but I know that my hon. Friend knows a good deal more about the site than I do. None the less, I shall certainly ensure that the case is looked at and will write to her in due course. I hope to be able to give her the answer that she seeks.

Is not it a rather fragile and inadequate basis for the Secretary of State's budget to depend to such an extent on windfalls from surplus assets? Does he understand that there is great sympathy for him in the House as he prepares, once again, to repel the predatory swoop of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the comprehensive spending review? Indeed, there is some sympathy for him in the House owing to the fact that briefing against him appears to have started already in this morning's national newspapers. Will he insist in the comprehensive spending review on a settlement that allows the MOD a proper budget, and one that does not rely on speculative returns from surplus assets?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong to describe asset sales as windfalls. All Departments—the MOD is no exception—must concentrate their activity on areas that they require, whether for training of people or testing of equipment. It is crucial that we retain only those assets that we need at any given time. Therefore, there is a vigorous programme of selling assets, as it is clearly important that land and sites are used for proper purposes rather than remaining redundant as part of our property portfolio. I disagree with him profoundly when he talks of the sale of such assets as windfalls. They are assets that the country can use more effectively than merely leaving them idle on the books of the MOD or any other Department.

Will the comprehensive spending review, to which the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) referred, consider the successor identification friend or foe system, and if it does, as I suspect it will, will there be sufficient funding for it from my right hon. Friend's Department? My constituency, Raytheon and RAF Sealand want to help my right hon. Friend and offer their services on the contract—

Order. We are getting quite a way from the original question. I shall try Sir Michael Spicer, who I hope will return to it.

One organisation that seems to be coming quite close to being surplus to requirements in the Government's mind is the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. In the light of the Select Committee's report on DERA and its importance to Anglo-American relations particularly, will the Government reconsider their position on it?

The Government have put out a further consultation paper in relation to the proposed sale of DERA. The hon. Gentleman refers to Anglo-American concerns; I assume that what he really means is anxieties in the United States. If he checks the situation carefully, he will find that the United States is content with the latest proposals, so that criticism does not arise. I have studied carefully and discussed with members of the Select Committee their reservations about the proposals. Clearly, we will take that into account before any final decisions are taken.

I welcome the statement of the Secretary of State with regard to the disposal of surplus land and buildings. Will he give an assurance that if there are opportunities to dispose of those in a way that is economically helpful to those communities, he will not stand by the last penny that he can get by holding out, but that he will co-operate with other Departments for the general benefit of those communities?

I can give the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that I may not stand by the last penny, but I shall certainly stand by the last £100 million.

I welcome the progress announced by my right hon. Friend in the disposal of surplus assets. Instead of the cash value, can he tell the House how many housing units have been released and how many acres of land have been disposed of by his Department?

As my hon. Friend knows, the great majority of houses in the possession of the Ministry of Defence are owned by a private company, from which we lease them—a decision taken by the previous Government. We have 63,000 families quarters, but some 53,000 of those are leased from a commercial company. The remainder are owned, and we have a further 20,700 houses in our overseas garrisons, so there is a considerable amount of property. We review it carefully and, as I said earlier, we ensure that we retain only the property that the country needs at any given time.

If he will make a statement on the Medicine Man exercises which will take place this year at the British Army training unit, Suffield. [127260]

Normally, five Medicine Man exercises at battle group level are conducted at BATUS in Canada each year. This year, however, there is only one standard Medicine Man; two have been cancelled because the units originally earmarked are committed to operations in the Balkans, and the final two exercises are being combined into Exercise Iron Hawk. That will be a brigade level exercise and will involve 3,200 soldiers from the lead reconnaissance taskforce and the lead aviation taskforce. It is an exciting development and will be the first time that helicopters have exercised at BATUS on such a scale. It will be an excellent opportunity for the troops involved to operate at that level.

Will the Minister join me in congratulating the 250 permanent staff whom we have in the training facility in Canada, which is larger than all the British Army's other training areas put together—a superb facility for training in high-intensity warfare? The Minister speaks about Iron Hawk. Was that not put together at the last minute, to cover up the fact that of the five full battle group exercises that are normally allowed in BATUS, only one can be carried out this year, for two reasons: first, because of overstretch, as the Minister correctly mentions—we simply do not have the troops to go there to take part in an exercise—and secondly, because of budgetary cuts? Is that not a disgraceful waste of one of the finest assets that the British Army has?

The hon. Gentleman has got that quite wrong. Does he think that we should not contribute troops to the international effort in Kosovo and Bosnia? The moneys allocated for Medicine Man 2 and 3 have been put into Medicine Man 4 and 5, which have been combined into a brigade level exercise. That is an enhancement of capability, a better kind of training and, if successful, could well be the template for the future. It is an interesting and successful story, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to draw it to the attention of the House.

That was a remarkable display of smoke and mirrors. The fact of the matter is that training at BATUS in Canada has been cut, which is bad news when we need to train for high-intensity warfare. Does the Minister recall that the Royal Marines cancelled their winter exercises in Norway? Has he noticed that only a handful of units have had time for biological and chemical defence training? Does he recall that HMS Westminster was pulled off an exercise and sent to enhance the millennium party on the Thames? Is he aware that in the spearhead battalions of the rapid reaction corps, only one in seven Lynx helicopters is fit to fly, and the pilots are queuing up for one-hour trips round the bay to keep their hands in? The Minister must stop the downward spiral. What does he intend to do—cut commitments or increase defence spending?

The hon. Gentleman excels himself. He referred to Lynx helicopters. Let us be clear that there is a technical problem with rotor heads. I suspect that those rotor heads were probably ordered under a previous Conservative Administration. However, armies, air forces and, indeed, airline companies face such inevitable problems.

How many Army personnel are deployed overseas. [127261]

Some 32,600 regular Army personnel, including Gurkhas, are currently serving overseas.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Will he accept that the infantry are currently 1,600 men under authorised strength, that the shortages are almost entirely in the lower ranks and that the regular battalion of the Royal Irish Regiment, which is currently 134 men under strength, is worst affected? Has it occurred to the Minister that the crisis in manpower and morale is the direct result of his folly in expecting more from less?

Last year marked a 10-year high in recruitment. The figure for this year is slightly less, but remains extremely good. There are difficulties in retention, and it is surprising that recruitment is so good when unemployment is at a 20-year low. There is traditionally a direct correlation between recruitment and unemployment levels. It is a tribute to our recruiters that they have been able to maintain high recruitment.

When our armed forces are deployed overseas, what are the rules of engagement when they, perhaps inadvertently, have an interface with outfits such as Sandline and Executive Outcomes? Are there strict instructions about the way in which they should respond and whether they should collaborate? The matter worries many hon. Members as a consequence of the Sierra Leone problems. Those problems also apply to other parts of the world. What instructions are given to our armed forces personnel?

I am not aware that Sandline is operating in Sierra Leone, but my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the existence of private operations. If our forces are engaged in an operation in support of a Government, they are instructed to report any discussion that arises regarding any private operation. Of course, there is a question about an individual Government's right to engage personnel in support of their own operations which, inevitably, relates to the sovereignty of that country. Our forces are under clear instructions that, should they encounter such groups in any way, they should report that, although, as I said, I have no evidence that Sandline or any other group is operating in Sierra Leone.

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). Will the Minister confirm that the overstretch on the Royal Engineers and Royal Signals in relation to their tour cycle is even greater than that on the infantry? Will he confirm that wastage is so bad that the Army is now at its smallest since the Crimean war? Where, in the list of items that he gave my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), does he fit the £11 million cut in married quarters repairs, the horrendous state of our single persons' accommodation and a string of penny-pinching savings, which go right down to failing to repair the Royal Engineers' gym at Chatham so that it cannot be used for fitness training?

I assume that the hon. Gentleman was a Member of the last Parliament when, as I recall, many of the problems that we inherited were building up. I will exonerate him a little as he made a bit of a fight about married quarters, although he buckled at the last minute in the face of the reaction from his Government. However, single living accommodation in particular is an ongoing problem and we are clear that we need to address it fully.

The Secretary of State knows that retention is one of the key problems in overstretch, and that morale is a key feature of that. When troops are deployed overseas with their rifles, they ask how they will be supported. Will the Minister therefore explain simply why, when the Government undertook the upgrade programme, they did not insist that it went to the UK, rather than Germany? Was it because the Secretary of State said that he did not care about metal bashing in the UK?

That is a sort of urban myth that the Opposition are trying to propagate—[Interruption.] It is not true. The question concerns the capability of BAE Systems and its ability to undertake that work. We had to consider its capability in Germany compared, unfortunately, with its declining capability in the UK which has been a long-standing position. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the main capability, even at Nottingham, was in large systems, rather than rifles.

That is utter nonsense. The Minister should go and talk to the Nottingham facility which believes that it can clearly undertake that work. He is therefore not telling the whole story. Does he not realise that, if what he says is the case, and we lose small arms production in the UK and cannot support such production, our service men will look round and see that their gloves are made in eastern Europe, their combat clothing in Belgium and their boots in Spain and Brazil? They will therefore be able to ask legitimately whether the trading standards officer might not arrive at the door of the Secretary of State one day and say that, under trade descriptions, the British Army should no longer be called British?

What a slur that is on all the British soldiers, who are very much British. About 83 per cent. of clothing orders go to British firms. There have been some headline stories about production going abroad, but actually, a considerable amount of production, of clothing and textiles, for example, has taken place in this country. At the same time, a number of British firms specialising in defence clothing and equipment are securing orders from elsewhere in Europe, under the European procedures.

Which RAF aircraft are armed with cannon; and if he will make a statement. [127262]

Cannon are carried on Jaguar, Tornado and Royal Navy Sea Harrier aircraft. They can also be fitted to Hawk aircraft for training purposes.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he share my dismay at the decision not to equip the Eurofighter with the Mauser cannon? Has he spoken to RAF pilots about that decision, and if so, what was their response?

May I point out that a number of our other aircraft do not have cannon either? I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the letter in The Daily Telegraph from Air Vice-Marshal Nicholl, who I presume knows something about aircraft. He wrote:

It is for that reason that I, not ministers, recommended to the MoD's most senior management group that we put no further effort into the gun.

In talking about close combat, the Minister is trying to bamboozle the House. He knows perfectly well that in recent years cannon have been effective against helicopters, for ground strafing, and, occasionally, against ships. Do the Government not realise that when other European countries that have ordered the Typhoon are taking delivery of it with cannon as planned, and when the United States is fitting a cannon to its latest generation combat aircraft, the F22, and would not dream of doing otherwise, the Government are making a total fool of themselves and of this country by trying to pretend that the RAF will be better off without cannon on the nose of its Typhoon, which instead has a lump of metal as a counterweight?

I think that the hon. Gentleman, who managed to keep just below the excitability level today, gave it away when he talked about ground strafing. This is a very capable air-to-air combat aircraft. That is its role. If we wish to attack targets on the ground, not only do we have a number of other aircraft, we also have the extremely capable Apache.

How much funding his Department has allocated to naval operations this year. [127263]

Responsibility for routine operations lies with the Commander-in-Chief Fleet. His cash budget is some £1.1 billion this year. Additionally, the Second Sea Lord and the Defence Logistics Organisation, which are funded separately, provide support and maintenance to the fleet.

I thank the Secretary of State for that response but—without blaming the previous Government, as this Government have been in power for three long years—can he say something, if not apologise, for the fact that the Navy has had to borrow submarines from Turkey and Germany for training purposes because it has insufficient submarines for its own needs, and that sailors at the HMS Cambridge gunnery school have been told that to save money, instead of firing live rounds when practising, they should shout "Bang!" into a microphone? That may be the Secretary of State's idea of megaphone diplomacy, but what does he believe it does for the morale of our sailors and our Navy?

The hon. Gentleman needs to get serious. He will know that such training exercises have always been conducted in that way at the very lowest levels in the armed forces. Raising such matters in that way simply cheapens his party's attitude to them. If he complains that such activities are the result of cuts, let me make it clear that his party was responsible for cutting the Navy over a long period from the mid-1980s onwards. The annual budget for the Ministry of Defence was cut each year from 1995–96 to 1997. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about cuts in the Navy, he should know that his party halved the number of destroyers and frigates, and cut Navy numbers by some 27,000 in that period; given that history, he should not make too many complaints.

With regard to naval operations support, will my right hon. Friend confirm that regular discussions take place with defence manufacturers not only on ship maintenance, refitting and repair facilities, but on promoting defence diversification? Given the job losses that were announced at Rosyth dockyard on Friday—a direct result of the previous Government's decision to remove submarine work from Rosyth—will he reassure my constituents about the Government's commitment to maintaining ship repair and refitting facilities, and promoting defence diversification, in areas still heavily dependent on defence work?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the measured way in which she asked her question. Certainly, the Government are concerned about the redundancies that have taken place. They are not connected with any work to consider the problem of overcapacity in warship maintenance and support; that is a matter for Babcock Rosyth Defence Ltd.—the owner of Rosyth dockyard. I understand that its announcement reflects its determination to improve efficiency and restructure its operation, but the Government certainly maintain their commitment to warship refitting, and we want to maintain in an efficient way the facilities that we have available. The key for the future of Rosyth lies in establishing its position as a fully competitive surface shipyard.

Will the Secretary of State give a similar assurance that Fleet Support Ltd. in Portsmouth dockyard will maintain its share of naval repair and maintenance work? Also, if the headquarters of naval operations, at Northwood, is to close and may move to Portsmouth, will some of the savings go into putting more and better crewed ships at sea and providing more operational time?

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the precise assurance that he requests, because clearly those are commercial matters involving private sector companies, which have to ensure that they are efficient and effective, and secure the work that provides appropriate levels of employment for their employees. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the level of work presently available will continue. Indeed, with the programme that the Government anticipate, I expect there to be work in the long term. However, that depends on each yard being efficient and commercially able to attract the kind of work that it needs to secure employment for its employees.

When he will make a statement on compensation for former British prisoners of war held by the Japanese. [127264]

As I explained to my hon. Friend during the debate on 6 June, we expect to make a decision soon on the matter of further compensation for former British prisoners of war held by the Japanese.

In view of what the Prime Minister has already told the House, can we expect that statement before the House rises for the summer recess? Bearing in mind the terrible brutality that prisoners held by the Japanese suffered, and the fact that 25 per cent. of them never returned, does my hon. Friend accept that there is much support, both in the House and in the country, for adequate compensation? I hope that a favourable decision will be made very shortly. Let us follow what the Canadians have done.

As my hon. Friend knows from several debates and questions on the subject, the Government fully recognise the bravery of those who were held as prisoners of war in the far east, and elsewhere, during the second world war and in subsequent conflicts. From meetings with the Royal British Legion, the Prime Minister and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, he also knows of our great sympathy for their suffering and that of their families. From previous replies, he is aware that the matter is still under consideration by the Government. No conclusions have yet been reached, and we are therefore unable to give a date on which an announcement will be made.

Does the Minister accept that this is a matter not of money but of honour, and of giving recognition to people who made sacrifices and endured ordeals that we cannot begin to imagine? That takes time, granted—but surely too much time has already passed. How can the Government say no?

At this stage I can only reiterate what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick): those matters are still under consideration and no decision has yet been made. We hope to make an announcement soon, but I cannot put a time on that at the moment.

Does the Minister accept that the prisoners of the Japanese are in a separate category because they were the subject of war crimes? I am reading the autobiography of Mr. Bill Griffiths, who while a prisoner of the Japanese was subjected to a war crime that cost him both his eyes and both his hands. How does the Minister think Mr. Griffiths feels about the compensation culture in this country, which pays out huge awards to people whose feelings have been hurt by careless remarks made at work, to service women who have become pregnant and cannot fulfil their duties, and to policemen who suffer stress caused by doing their duty? How do the far east prisoners feel when such payouts are made for situations that do not begin to compare with what they suffered?

Yes, I fully understand those sentiments. However, I should point out that many of the circumstances have existed for much of the time since 1955, when a previous Conservative Government decided not to proceed further. I should also point out that the Conservative party was in power for 18 years and chose not to make a decision. These are difficult issues—[Interruption.] It ill behoves Conservative Front Benchers who were Members of the House in that period, and did nothing, to shout out. These are complicated issues, which is why the discussions between Departments are taking some time—but we still hope to make an announcement soon.

How many extra personnel the Government aim to recruit to the defence medical services over the next three years. [127265]

We aim to recruit some 3,300 regular personnel into the defence medical services over the current financial year and the next two financial years. However, recruiting targets are dynamic and could be subject to change. The figure of 3,300 includes all trades and specialties within the medical and dental fields, and covers recruiting into training, as well as direct-entry qualified personnel.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that by contrast, the Conservative Government had planned a massive £600 million cut in the defence medical services budget? Does that not illustrate their attitude towards not only the defence budget but the national health service? I say that because I am aware of the enormous amount of work carried out for the NHS by defence medical services staff in peacetime.

I thank my hon. Friend; he is absolutely right. The real tragedy of the notorious defence costs study 15, which slashed the defence medical services, is that the long training times required for medical specialties mean that it takes an enormous amount of time and effort to retrieve the situation, particularly when the demand for health services elsewhere in the country is rising. I am pleased to say that in several areas, the number of people undergoing medical training has increased, and we shall work with the NHS in that regard.

It is easy for the Minister of State to say what he hopes for, but what are the facts? What has been the effect on recruitment and retention of the proposed closure of the only tri-service military hospital, at Haslar hospital in my constituency? Can he confirm or deny that that decision was so serious that our forces' ability to deploy overseas is now seriously constrained by a shortage of medical staff?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware—he certainly should be from the number of parliamentary answers that I have given him on the subject—that the closure of Haslar was driven mainly by the difficulties in retaining training accreditation from the various royal colleges in their specialties, precisely because of the level and variety of throughput. Indeed, that has been the experience of other separate medical hospitals, including those that have now gone into national health service hospitals. I have spoken to the staff who have made that transfer and they say that, although in the medical units within the hospitals the work is harder, it is more fulfilling and professionally much more satisfying. That reflects the judgment of the medical colleges, from which we were in danger of steadily losing accreditation because of the level of throughput.

May I welcome my hon. Friend's statement? He will know of the vital and valued service provided by royal naval hospital staff at Plymouth Derriford. He will also probably know of the recent announcement that there is to be a new medical school, the Peninsula medical school, based in Plymouth and Exeter. Can he confirm that the co-operation with the NHS that he was talking about will extend to working with that new medical school? The extra investment will mean that 100 of the 1,000 extra doctors in training in the NHS will be trained in Plymouth and Exeter.

I welcome not only that, but the expansion into East Anglia, which is another area that has not traditionally had a medical training facility. That is good news for the country because of the extra number of medics, and it is good news for those areas. There has also been an expansion into the black country, based on Birmingham university. Again, that means medical training in areas that had not previously experienced its benefits, and we shall work with the health service in that regard.

What the current strength is of the Territorial Army. [127266]

The latest available official figures give the total strength of the Territorial Army as 43,334.

Does the Minister accept that if there is to be a recruitment campaign for the Territorial Army, he must first deal with the severe morale and retention problems that have devastated the TA because of the misjudged cuts that the Government have made?

The hon. Gentleman will be surprised to know that I do not accept that analysis. I repeat the fact that we reoriented the focus of the Territorial Army away from the cold war features, which were primarily intended to provide reinforcement in a conflict in central Germany and to protect key installations in this country. We wanted to move to territorial, or, indeed, reserve forces. Reference is always made to the TA, but there has been an increase in Navy, Air Force and Marines reserves. We wanted to reorient the TA, in particular, as a force that is usable and used, and that is what we have been successfully undertaking.

What progress he has made in the procurement of (a) new aircraft carriers and (b) future carrier-borne aircraft. [127268]

Competitive assessment contracts to develop design options for the future aircraft carrier, each worth up to £30 million, were awarded in November 1999 to BAE Systems and Thomson-CSF Naval Systems. The carriers will form the principal platform for the joint Royal Navy and RAF future carrier-borne aircraft and the future organic airborne early warning system. We are assessing options for the FCBA and a decision is planned for later this year. We are in the early stages of discussions with industry on the early warning system.

Given the vital importance of the aircraft carriers to the future expeditionary policy, and given that the two procurement programmes go together, the platform must be designed for the aircraft and the aircraft must be designed for the platform. What is the time scale for the future carrier-borne aircraft? No one wants a bodged last-minute "marinisation" of an aircraft designed for land-based use.

The hon. Gentleman is right that it is necessary to consider both the decisions together. Although two teams are considering the two issues separately, they work closely together. The three designs under consideration for the two aircraft carriers reflect the three types of aircraft that could be embarked on the carriers. As this work is complex and depends on ensuring that both decisions proceed in parallel and complement each other, the assessment phase will be complete in 2003, when bids for the demonstration and manufacture phase will be delivered. That will inform a decision by Ministers in late 2003, with contract placement for the carriers planned for 2004.

Will full consideration be given to Eurofighter, especially a Fleet Air Arm version, which would not only provide jobs in the north-west but give a further role to a much needed aircraft?

Certainly a version of the Eurofighter is one of the candidates.

Her Majesty's Government have already put funds into the joint strike fighter. Given the need for transatlantic defence co-operation and the huge market for the aeroplane in the United States armed forces, as well as, potentially, in our own, is it not important for the Government to take advantage of the investment that has already been made?

The hon. Gentleman is right. There are a number of other options, including two versions of the joint strike fighter. They will certainly be strong contenders.