If he will make a statement on the deployment of United Kingdom armed forces since 28 July. [132990]

Since 28 July, the United Kingdom armed forces have continued their operational deployments in support of international efforts in Bosnia, Kosovo and the Gulf. On 10 October, the UK also announced an enhancement to our deployment in support of the Government of Sierra Leone.

Many of those examples would have justified a statement in the House, but for the inordinately long recess.

My hon. Friend will probably have observed that Major Marshall had to have a meeting with the Commander-in-Chief, Land, General Jackson—

That would not have been a pleasant occasion.

As usual, the right hon. and learned Gentleman treats the matter lightly. I do not think that Major Marshall treated it lightly.

How many British troops have been deployed on courses training them to drive fuel tankers since 28 July? Is this the best use of military personnel? Is it not the kind of sabre-rattling that is likely to inflame industrial relations, rather than calming them down?

I am interested to learn that a Conservative Member believes that a Government should not make appropriate contingency arrangements to secure and safeguard vital supplies to maintain the country.

Has my hon. Friend heard the statements from those on the Opposition Front Bench hinting that we should not be in Sierra Leone, but should leave the people there to their fate, and hinting that we should not have gone into Kosovo to get rid of Milosevic? Is it not a fact that, in regard to overseas deployment, the Conservative party is now the most isolationist party in Europe?

Order. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is not the business of the Minister to worry about the Conservative party.

Would the Minister agree—in condemning, in passing, the isolationism of the Conservative party—with the American Defence Secretary's statement fully supporting, ungrudgingly and wholeheartedly, the European defence initiative led by this country and opposed by the isolationists on the Opposition Benches?

Obviously, I find myself in some degree of agreement with my hon. Friend. He is right to draw attention to the current Conservative party's tendency—perhaps acquired from some of the ultra wings of opinion in the United States—towards isolationism rather than constructive engagement with the world. I am afraid that that tendency is symptomatic of a deeper development in the Conservative party, which will ensure that it stays on the Opposition Benches for a very long time.

Can we get back to the facts? Will the Minister confirm whether 1,000 troops have been deployed for training to drive oil tankers and whether the Government have ordered the stockpiling of fuel in military depots? Are those men volunteers and on what legal basis has the action been carried out: is it under the Emergency Powers Acts, or under military aid to the civil community; and, if the latter, who made the request?

I should have thought—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] It is much easier to answer when Opposition Members are not shouting. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would agree that it is absolutely prudent and right to make contingency plans for circumstances in which the civil authorities request the military forces to train a number of personnel to undertake such tasks which are necessary to maintain the supply of essential services to the nation. We have prudently and contingently been training troops and, according to current progress, I estimate that, after the 60-day period, the number trained will approach 1,000. They will be trained to undertake necessary tasks in the event of a breakdown of order resulting in the ordinary civilian groups that would normally undertake those tasks being unable to do so, and the civil authorities requesting that we do so.

If he will hold a new inquiry into the circumstances leading to the crash of Chinook ZD576 on the Mull of Kintyre in 1994. [132991]

The Government have always made it clear that if new evidence were to come to light, it would be examined with scrupulous care, thoroughness and compassion. To date, we have seen nothing that causes us to doubt the integrity of the verdict of the RAF board of inquiry, or that would prompt us to hold a new inquiry.

Given the volume of new evidence that has emerged, especially in connection with the software involved, and the number of eminent persons who have expressed disquiet about the verdict, is it not now time to reopen the matter? After all, would it not clear the air? What is the Ministry of Defence attempting to hide?

The MOD is not attempting to hide anything. I have examined every single submission made to the Ministry on the subject. There is certainly a mass of material, but none of it discloses any new evidence as such. I accept that many people who have looked at the evidence have said that they would have reached a different conclusion from the one reached by the board of inquiry, but that is not a sufficient reason to overturn a board of inquiry and order a new one. Only if there was real, relevant new evidence would that be the appropriate course of action.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the extreme disquiet felt by hon. Members on both sides of the House and in the other place about whether we can really have a verdict based on blaming the dead? Will he come with an open mind to next month's meeting with the Mull of Kintyre group?

I do have an open mind on the subject. I have set out what I consider to be the proper course to adopt, which is that it is not right to disturb the finding of the original board of inquiry in the absence of any significant new evidence, or because it is possible for different people, perfectly properly and with an entirely open mind, to reach different conclusions. Only if it could be shown that there was new evidence would it be right to reopen the board of inquiry. I certainly have an open mind in respect of new evidence becoming available.

How does my right hon. Friend square what he has just said—that different people can reasonably come to different conclusions—with the Ministry of Defence's position that, if the pilots are dead, it is wrong to blame them unless there is absolutely no doubt that they are responsible? If it is open to honourable people to come to different conclusions in the case, it is entirely outwith the bounds of the Ministry's own provisions to have declared the pilots responsible.

I am sorry, but that is absolutely not right. The board of inquiry was instructed properly, according to the rules governing such inquiries that prevailed at the time, and the board pursued the matter perfectly properly. My hon. Friend seems to imply that it should be possible to reopen any decision or judgment at which a board of inquiry has arrived simply because, later, others take a different view. That cannot be right and it cannot be the right way in which to deal with such matters.

The Prime Minister finds time to see a very strange group of people, from Bernie Ecclestone to Liam Gallagher. How come he could not find time to receive an all-party delegation from both Houses, including several Privy Councillors, who were seriously concerned that there may have been a breach of natural justice in this case?

That is obviously a matter for the Prime Minister. However, if the hon. Gentleman had phrased his question in a slightly more sensible way, I might have been willing to give him a rather more serious response. Nevertheless, the reality is that the Prime Minister is engaged in this matter, and that he has answered a number of questions on this issue in the course of his responsibilities. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman seeks to catch the Speaker's eye on a future occasion when the Prime Minister is answering questions, he will be able to raise that issue with him.

What discussions he has had with his Armenian counterparts as to developments in Iraq. [132992]

I remain in regular contact with the United States Government on a range of issues, including Iraq. I exchanged views most recently with Mr. Cohen, the Secretary for Defence, in the margins of NATO informal ministerials, in Birmingham, on 10 October.

The question is on Armenian counterparts.

That was a printers' error, Mr. Speaker.

My hon. Friend knows that determined efforts are made by the international community to enforce sanctions. Those efforts are not as effective as we would like them to be. However, certainly, we continue to see real value in the enforcement of sanctions and we play our part in that process.

Given the differences between British policy and French policy on Iraq, how will the Government's objectives be helped by the new European Union military arrangements, particularly if, as reported in yesterday's The Sunday Telegraph, the director general of the military staff is to be French?

The military arrangements that are the headline goal are not anticipated to be used in the context of enforcing the no-fly zones in Iraq, which is what British forces with their American counterparts are engaged in. I am, therefore, not sure that the premise of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question is at all relevant. Nevertheless, it gives him an opportunity to air once again the anti-European phobia that too many Opposition Members seem to be suffering from.

How many British troops are deployed in Sierra Leone. [132993]

Our announcement on 10 October indicated a small increase in the total number of troops deployed in Sierra Leone. The number will vary depending on the training task under way, but it is likely to be slightly over 400.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's answer. Can he assure the House that, while clearly doing everything possible to support the United Nations peacekeeping force, we are not going to see mission creep or find ourselves in the situation of British forces taking the fight direct to the rebels?

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The primary purpose of British forces going to Sierra Leone is not only to train the forces of the Government of Sierra Leone, but to demonstrate that the current deployment is there for training purposes. The 400 whom I mentioned earlier are there to assist the Government of Sierra Leone in developing forces of their own that can be used to take on the rebels. The deployment there of the amphibious ready group is part of a demonstration of our commitment to the United Nations, pursuant to a memorandum that we signed with the UN in 1999.

I support the training mission, which is essential for the long-term stability of Sierra Leone. It is also right that the United Kingdom should provide additional forces to assist the United Nations effort. Without them the success of the training mission cannot be guaranteed. However, instead of a separate command, would it not make much more sense to place the additional British forces under the United Nations command? The withdrawal of the Indian and the Jordanian troops is generally accepted as weakening the UN effort. How will we persuade other countries to contribute to the UN effort if we are not willing to contribute to it ourselves?

I do not accept that analysis of the problem. The training that we are conducting is quite separate from the United Nations mission in Sierra Leone. We have offered extra headquarters staff to UNAMSIL to give it some assistance in deploying its forces as well as provided substantial assistance to the Government of Sierra Leone. We believe that the best way of assisting that Government is to make sure that they have forces on which they can call to resist the rebel forces in Sierra Leone.

We clearly have obligations to a Commonwealth ally that is seeking to achieve democracy. We also have obligations to the United Nations which, as the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said, is potentially facing a crisis of confidence with Jordanian and Indian forces leaving as the fighting season begins. Is it the Government's clear view that our reinforcements are in Sierra Leone only for confidence building and to tidy matters up in the short term and that there will be no move—substantial or otherwise—from a training to an active intervention role?

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. May I make it clear that we announced on 10 October that the training will continue certainly until April of next year? We recognise the importance of providing a substantial body of trained troops to the Government of Sierra Leone. The early training teams have been very successful and have provided soldiers whom the Government of Sierra Leone can use. We also wish to extend the training so that, as well as providing trained individuals, we ensure that the Government of Sierra Leone can call on trained groups. That means more than simply providing individual soldiers with weapons, uniforms and boots, but providing them with the equipment that will be needed if they are—as we hope they will—to take the fight to the rebels.

Earlier Government policy hinged on an effective UN force being in place with the right numbers to be able to keep the peace. However, that force has proved ineffective. As the Secretary of State knows, it will not take the action that is necessary. Now, with the departure of the Indians and the Jordanians, it is beginning to look even more ineffective than it was when British forces were deployed earlier this year to support it. That leaves us with a vacuum that, as Labour Members have already said, may well suck us deeper into the conflict.

May I deal with the premise behind the hon. Gentleman's question? There is no suggestion at the moment that the UN force is not effective. It has preserved peace in Sierra Leone and there is no sign that the rebels have taken any new ground. Indeed, it is clearly central to our policy that that force should be effective.

What is the current percentage of the Army (a) committed to, (b) preparing for and (c) recovering from operations. [132995]

Some 22 per cent. of the trained Army is committed to operations. This figure includes units preparing for, deployed on and recovering from operations. Of these, 15 per cent. of the trained Army is currently deployed on operations.

I am pleased to hear it. However, what would the impact be if the United States were to withdraw its forces from Kosovo and Bosnia, as George Bush junior has threatened to do in the unhappy event that he becomes President?

Certainly, any new Administration—whichever candidate wins in that election—will obviously wish to review their foreign and defence policy and have discussions with their allies in that regard. NATO has been ensuring that there are adequate forces in both Bosnia and Kosovo so that we can maintain a stable situation in those societies, as demonstrated by the very welcome elections in Kosovo over the weekend.

Given the high strike rate of operations at the present time, which I regard as unavoidable, will the Minister assure the House that, even though the Ministry of Defence cut back on the training programme last year, there will be no such cutback in the high-intensity battle training for the year coming and the year after that?

First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments about the level of operations and his understanding of the requirement for those. He will also understand that we try, wherever possible, to avoid any cuts in significant training. Last year, on balance, although there were one or two highly publicised events, very little training suffered cutbacks.

In the context of single people, in particular, who are preparing for and recovering from operations, what progress has been made in improving accommodation for them in the United Kingdom?

The answer is, significant but not yet sufficient. The Secretary of State, the Under-Secretary, who is responsible for the accommodation programme, and I are working with the Ministry to improve that programme. We take the point that, over a number of years, housing has been used as the balancing item, which has had a significant effect on deteriorating conditions. Public focus has often been on married quarters, but having visited a number of those quarters, we are very aware of the inadequate provision for single living accommodation and we intend to do something about it.

The Government have to deal with those who are preparing for operations. Will the Minister accept that 1,000 drivers being trained to help bust any sort of strike may well be included among those, as they are being prepared and are ready to be deployed on an operation? As and when they are deployed on that operation, will those military drivers be under the command of the Home Office or the Ministry of Defence?

First, let me be quite clear. I am not aware of a proposal for a strike anywhere in terms of national supplies. I am aware of threats to blockade, disrupt, barricade—in other words, of threats potentially to conduct illegal action. In the event that such action took place—I stress that it would not be a strike-and that the civil authorities and the civilian organisations were unable to undertake action to provide those supplies, there could be a request to the military to provide that equipment and also, therefore, that service.

Now that the Minister has had his rant, perhaps he would answer the question exactly and specifically. Why would the Government, in the form of the Ministry of Defence, be training 1,000 drivers? Who requested that that be done? If those drivers are deployed, will they be under the command of the Home Office and, thus, will there be a state of emergency? Who asked for it?

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman does not understand how government works. There is collective responsibility, with a lead from the Home Departments. In the event of a breakdown in vital supplies to the nation, the Home Departments could make a request to the military authorities to provide military aid. Therefore, we have to make contingency arrangements so that we could respond to such a request if it were made. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman does not understand the rules, regulations and laws relating to military aid for civil authorities, but that is probably because Conservative Members have been busy supporting those who were barricading the refineries rather than defending law and order.

What recent assessment he has made of the military threat to the United Kingdom from states with rogue Governments. [132996]

Our assessment is that there is no significant immediate military threat to the United Kingdom. We continue, however, to monitor the development of military threats very closely.

That is a great relief. If there is no threat to us, what will be our attitude to the phantom threat that is encouraging the United States to introduce a national missile defence system that will entail the upgrading of the radar station at Fylingdales in this country, which we are told is in conflict with the anti-ballistic missile treaty? If George Bush wins the election in America, is not it true that there will be an attempt to introduce that very dangerous national missile system not to secure world peace, but to secure fat contracts for the American arms industry?

My hon. Friend has asked that sort of question before, but I should have thought that he would have taken account of the measured approach adopted by President Clinton in stating that he would defer any decision on the deployment of national missile defence. In those circumstances, no request has been made of the United Kingdom and, therefore, much of what he asks me to comment on is mere speculation. However, I can tell him that President Clinton took careful account of the views of the United States allies, including the United Kingdom.

Given that the Foreign Office is opposed to ballistic missile defence, what pressure has the Secretary of State received from his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to curtail his Department's involvement in the United Kingdom readiness and risk assessment programme?

Again, Opposition Members need to understand the doctrine of collective Cabinet responsibility, because the Government speak with a single voice on those matters. I have set out the Government's view precisely. We have had discussions with our US allies. We were delighted that, in announcing his decision to defer any decision in the United States, President Clinton said that he had taken account of those views. We are most grateful.

In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), the Defence Secretary said that President Clinton had taken account of the views put forward by allied Governments, including the United Kingdom. Can he tell us exactly what those views were? Will he place those opinions in the Library so that they can be made public? Will he say that, in the event that either future President Gore or future President Bush requests us to endorse national missile defence, with all its dangers and illegalities, the British Government will simply say no?

My hon. Friend asks me to speculate on a decision that has not even been taken in the United States and which the US President has recently said does not need to be taken. In those circumstances, he is simply making a request for speculation. A number of issues have to be taken into account. I am delighted that the US President was prepared to take into account the views of allies and said as much.

Given that rogue Governments may well use information warfare techniques to pose a military threat to the United Kingdom, and that our information warfare defences will almost certainly include commercially available software, what action does the Secretary of State plan to take following the recent hacking into Microsoft's most secure systems?

The hon. Lady is right to point out that there are, in the modern world, ways in which Governments can be attacked other than by conventional military means. We are aware, across Government, of such threats, and we take every step to develop defences against such potential attacks. As the Microsoft incident shows, there are some ingenious and clever people who are prepared to put their talents at the disposal of the unscrupulous, and we must guard against them, too.

How many British troops are deployed in Bosnia. [132997]

Currently, we have about 2,300 troops deployed in Bosnia, serving with SFOR. We are on target for a commitment of about 2,000 troops by the end of the year. About 4,000 troops are deployed in Kosovo, 500 of whom were deployed for the election period. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence plans to visit the Balkans region before the end of this year and intends to call on troops serving in KFOR and SFOR.

How long does my hon. Friend believe that British troops will remain in Bosnia?

Quite simply, that will depend on developments in Bosnia. To some extent, that will be influenced by the favourable developments in Serbia and the departure of Milosevic—a departure hastened by the strong action of allied forces last year and our strong commitment against him since then.

Is the Minister studying the recent election results in both Serbia and Kosovo? What change have they made to the Government's thinking about the troops being kept there? Will he reassure the House that the commitment is not unlimited? The troops have been in Bosnia for about eight years and it looks as though they could remain for a very long time to come.

The hon. Gentleman would agree that the overthrow of Milosevic changes the situation. It is a favourable development on which we must build, but it would be premature to contemplate timetables. No one should underestimate the change in the region, which has been matched or even precipitated by the change in Croatia, where again a hard-line regime was defeated by a more progressive one that clearly wants to be part of Europe. We intend to build on those very favourable developments. It might be premature to set a timetable, but the changes begin to offer us some light.

Will my hon. Friend ensure that the House's appreciation for the work of our forces in Bosnia is communicated to them? What message does he have for the new Government in Belgrade concerning the restoration of normal relations with Bosnia, to allow a de-escalation of the military presence in the Balkans?

We intend to reopen the embassy there and to appoint a defence attaché. Discussions are taking place with ourselves and other European countries. We should recognise, however, that the first priority of the new regime in Belgrade will be the reconstruction of the country. The new Government will have to focus on that, but we aim to work with them and help them in that process.

When he will announce the outcome of his review of the case for ex gratia payments to former far east prisoners of war. [133002]

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House last Wednesday, the Government's review of the case for awarding additional, ex gratia, compensation to former UK service personnel who were prisoners of war in the far east is still in progress, but we expect a decision to be announced very shortly.

Does the Secretary of State appreciate the strong support throughout the House for a group of people who have experienced privations that are unimaginable to most of us? It is much to be regretted that the Government have been sending mixed signals on the issue over the past few months. Can he assure us now that the question will be resolved, not within months or even weeks, but within days?

I do understand the issue. My father served in India and in Burma during the second world war. I grew up in no doubt of the conditions in which many of our armed forces were held, of the appalling circumstances and, moreover, of the fact that many of those people carried that legacy throughout their lives; some continue to do so. Therefore, I am aware of the circumstances. I assure the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members that the matter will be resolved as quickly as possible.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, since the Prime Minister replied to my question last Wednesday, there has been greater optimism among the people affected that a settlement will very soon be reached? I hope that it will be reached very shortly. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the Japanese who should pay compensation, and that their refusal to do so has led to the position where the British Government are likely to do so? Should we not remember that some 25 per cent. of prisoners never returned because of the horrifying conditions that they had to endure, dying as prisoners of the Japanese?

Some compensation was paid under the 1951 peace treaty. I accept that, understandably, those affected regard that compensation as inadequate, which is precisely why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister acknowledged the other day that this nation, the United Kingdom, owes those people a particular debt of honour. It is that debt of honour that we are reviewing. I hope that the optimism that my hon. Friend mentions is vindicated.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the far east prisoners of war were, as I have pointed out to the House previously, victims of war crimes? Will he give a commitment that any payments to them will be not means-related, but absolute ex gratia payments either to the far east prisoners of war themselves, or to their widows if they have since died?

I am well aware of the implications of any decision that the Government take. All I can do is assure the hon. Gentleman that those factors are taken into account as part of the review that is yet to conclude.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are only 7,500 former far east POWs left and that, in the next few years, that figure is likely to drop substantially? Can we do quickly what the Tories failed to do for 18 years: get an announcement out of the way and get the money to those men before it is too late?

I have indicated my appreciation and understanding of the problem. All I can say to my hon. Friend is that we are proceeding with the review as quickly as we possibly can.

What contribution the United Kingdom is making towards meeting the headline goals of the European security and defence initiative. [133004]

What recent discussions he has had with his European Union counterparts about the European security and defence initiative; and if he will make a statement. [133005]

I discussed European security and defence issues with my EU counterparts at the EU Defence Ministers informal meeting on 22 September in Paris, and with all NATO allies at the informal meeting of NATO Defence Ministers in Birmingham on 10 October.

As the capability conference is imminent, can the Secretary of State not come to the House later this week and say clearly which units will be earmarked from the British armed forces to fulfil the role under the ESDI? Is it not a very large role to deploy an Army corps for up to a year, sustained by 350 combat aircraft and no less than 80 naval vessels? Where are the extra resources coming from? Is there not a risk that it will damage NATO without any corresponding increase in capability, unless the money and resources are forthcoming?

There is—the hon. Gentleman was no doubt alluding to it—a defence debate on Wednesday and Thursday this week. Clearly, it will be possible during that debate to discuss those matters in more detail, but I doubt that we would be in a position by Wednesday or Thursday to indicate to the House precisely what initial contribution we are offering as part of the capability conference. However, I make it clear to him and, indeed, to other hon. Members that what is proposed in relation to the headline goal is not a standing force. It is not a force that will permanently be waiting for some Petersberg crisis to be called into action. They are commitments of capability in exactly the same way as NATO allies contribute to NATO and to the United Nations where appropriate. We are seeking to persuade other European Union member states to have available the kind of rapid reaction forces that, as a result of the strategic defence review in particular, we can make available for international operations.

May I congratulate the Defence Secretary on answering more questions than usual in his own right? Will he give the House an assurance this afternoon that the Americans will not see the ESDI as a threat to European defence and that our European partners will meet the commitments that we are expecting of them in this regard?

I was assuming that the hon. Lady would disagree with the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on this subject. Nevertheless, I can give her a clear assurance, as was given by Bill Cohen, the United States Defence Secretary, most recently at Birmingham that the United States Administration strongly support the development of European capabilities and want to see them improved. Indeed, had the hon. Lady studied the history of the US and NATO, she would know full well that for a long time the US has called for a more effective European contribution to NATO because, in strengthening Europe's contribution to NATO, we will be strengthening NATO itself.

This is my first public opportunity to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on assuming the Chair. I am very pleased.

I am always lost in admiration for my hon. Friend's ability to draw in subjects that are not obvious from the Order Paper, but I certainly have some sympathy with his views. I wonder, in the unlikely event of the Opposition ever returning to government, which particular partners they would associate with in future. Clearly, they want to leave the European Union. They criticise every aspect of any decision taken in the context of the European Union and they reject the views and advice of the current United States Administration because they do not want the US to be content with a European development, so I wonder where their isolationist tendency is leading.

Perhaps the Secretary of State will get away from polemics and revert to the facts. Does he accept that any European defence initiative for a rapid response force must have the lift potential to be got to wherever the problems are as quickly as possible? That lift potential does not exist in Europe at the moment. Is it to be expected that we will rely entirely on the Americans to provide that lift potential, or how quickly does he envisage France, Germany and ourselves will be able to provide it?

Perhaps I would not be tempted to polemics if the right hon. Gentleman, in asking such questions, were more likely to say how much he approved of the Government's position on airlifts. Had he started by asking how it is that, over many years, the Government whom he supported failed to invest in the airlift that is required to carry out international missions and said how well the present Government had done in making the necessary investment, I might have had a bit more sympathy with him. Nevertheless, I can assure him that by agreeing to lease four C 17s, which will be in service next year with the RAF, and by committing to buy 25 A400Ms—a new European transport aircraft—we will put in the necessary investment for our armed forces to have the heavy lift required to get them rapidly into theatres where they are needed. I think that I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, although I would be greatly appreciative if he were a little less grudging in his comments.

If he will visit the Cotswold families centre in Corsham to discuss its future. [133006]

I should like to take this opportunity to commend the service provided by the services Cotswold centre on behalf of service families. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the future of the centre is under review and we hope to make a decision about its future in the first half of next year.

Is there not a curious irony that the outstanding service provided at the centre for the victims of family breakdown—as well as education services for the local battered wives refuge and other services entirely for less-privileged people—which was preserved by the Conservative Government for 18 years, should now be under review by the Labour Government, who claim to be committed to persons of that kind? The Minister has been reviewing the centre for some three and a half years already. Will he at the very least agree to complete the review as soon as he can? Will he come and visit the centre with me—I shall welcome him there any day he cares to come—so that I can show him personally the excellent work that is carried out there?

The hon. Gentleman has raised this matter with me before, and I understand his concern. However, I receive a considerable number of requests to visit establishments around the country. This is one that we are considering, but I cannot give him a guarantee.

If he will make a statement on the numbers employed in the nuclear defence industry in Scotland. [133012]

The total number of personnel employed directly by the Ministry of Defence in establishments in Scotland that undertake nuclear-related activity is 3,974. In addition, we employ private contractors. Also, the figure does not include service personnel ported at the Clyde naval base.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the situation in Scotland, where the policies of the Scottish National party as regards the nuclear industry are causing tremendous concern to the work force? Will he ensure that he publicises the threat to the nuclear defence industry in Scotland? Will he seek to reassure the people working in the industry?

My hon. Friend and I have met members of the work force, who are enormously professional and have an enormous pride in the skills that they employ, as well as in the contribution that they make to Britain's defences. The House will not be surprised that Scottish National party Members have chosen not to turn up today; there is nothing unusual in that. However, their views on this subject are at direct variance with the views of the great majority of people in this country and are very much at variance with the interests of the work force on the Clyde at Coulport and Faslane, the many other workers who depend on those establishments for their employment and the suppliers to the defence industry. I need no incitement from my hon. Friend to undertake to give the widest possible publicity to the difficulties that Scottish National party policy would cause not only for the people at Faslane and Coulport, but for the people of Scotland and the industry generally. [Interruption.] I cannot quite hear what the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) is saying with regard to this matter; I am sure that it is instructive.