What recent discussions he has had with his European and NATO counterparts on Bosnia and Kosovo. [138571]

I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence take every opportunity to discuss issues relating to the Balkans, including Bosnia and Kosovo, with our European and NATO counterparts. The informal NATO Defence Ministers' meeting held in Birmingham in October this year covered these issues, as will the NATO Defence Ministers' meeting in Brussels next week. In addition, my right hon. Friend has recently met his French and German counterparts, and the Balkans region was discussed.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, with the onset of winter, it is particularly important to ensure that our forces in Bosnia and Kosovo are adequately housed? If so, will he inform me of what the Government are doing about this matter?

It is a question not just of what we are doing, but of what we have done. Although the temporary improved tented accommodation was by no means as bad as it was depicted, we certainly needed to make improvements. The new field accommodation is excellent, it is bedding in well and it has been well received. Arguably, it is among the best in the region.

Can the Minister confirm that, in his discussions with NATO and European Union allies, he has continued to receive advice at the highest level on Kosovo and Bosnia from Sir Charles Guthrie, the Chief of the Defence Staff? Has not Sir Charles always offered high level, independent advice to successive Governments, not just as Chief of the Defence Staff, but when he was leader of the SAS? Are not the recent attacks on him by the Conservative press a thinly veiled political attack?

I can only find myself in agreement with the hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] I notice that the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) is laughing, but he was in the forefront of previous attacks on the Chief of Defence Staff during the Kosovo crisis. The politicisation of attacks on senior members of the military is disgraceful, but I firmly believe that they relate to the underlying problem that the "born to rule" lot on the Opposition Benches cannot accept a different Government. They will attack any public servant who does his job properly by working for the democratically elected Government.

Can my hon. Friend assure the House that KFOR will do all that it can to protect the interests of minority ethnic groups in Kosovo? That is the key to achieving a long-term settlement.

Not only can I assure my hon. Friend of that, but I have seen it in action when I have been to Pristina. It is enormously important to maintain the peace, and that is why urgent talks are taking place on the situation in the Presovo valley.

Can the Minister explain, for the benefit of the whole House, Her Majesty's Government attitude to the latest developments in the Presovo valley, particularly in light of Belgrade's demands that the Komanovo agreement be renegotiated? Over the weekend, three Serb policemen were murdered and President Kostunica has sent armoured troops into the area nearby. He wants the villages taken by the Albanians to be returned and he has made two demands, not least that armed Serb police be moved into the buffer zone.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his balanced question. It is a difficult issue and we went in to maintain a multi-ethnic Kosovo. We and the other nations involved in KFOR are concerned by any moves that could be destabilising. That is precisely why discussions have taken place between KFOR and the representatives of the Yugoslav Government, and I understand that a leading representative will go to Belgrade for further talks. I can also report to the House that arrangements are being made for the handover of the bodies of the three Serb policemen who were killed in the recent engagement, so there have also obviously been discussions with representatives of the Albanian side to try to stabilise the position.

My hon. Friend referred to the importance of stability in Kosovo. Does he agree that any move by the new United States Administration to take precipitate action to withdraw their forces from Kosovo and Bosnia could only be destabilising, and could lead to an upsurge of violence and renewed conflict throughout the region?

We have had no indication from either representative who could form the new Administration that he is proposing precipitate action in Kosovo or the Balkans more widely.

What plans he has to meet the German Defence Minister to discuss EU defence initiatives. [138572]

I met the German Defence Minister on 20 and 21 November at the capabilities commitments conference in Brussels, and I shall meet him again at the North Atlantic Council Defence Ministers' meeting on 5 and 6 December, at which the European defence initiative will undoubtedly be discussed.

The declaration from the conference on 20 November refers to a force catalogue which specifies the detailed commitments of member states. Will the Secretary of State place a copy of that in the Library?

As I have already told the House, the representation by United Kingdom forces in the force catalogue can be made available. The amount and nature of the offering from other member states are a matter for them.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that our decision to participate in the European defence initiative has been widely welcomed by Labour Members? In light of the robust support that it has received from Madeleine Albright and other spokesmen for the American defence department, can he assure the House that our participation in the joint strike fighter programme with the Americans, of which we are funding £200 million of the development phase, will be unaffected by our role in the European initiative?

We have also had a good deal of support from the Opposition—the former Deputy Prime Minister, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the former Foreign Secretary and the former Conservative party chairman—together with all the leaders of NATO who see improvements in the European defence capability as being good for Europe and good for NATO. As for the JSF, although no decisions have been taken, I can assure my hon. Friend that the proposal is being carefully considered.

When the Secretary of State meets the German Defence Minister, will he tell him by how much the Government intend to increase the number of people in the British Army, at present 106,000, to meet the new obligations that will be incurred by membership of the European rapid reaction force?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman, who usually speaks knowledgeably on such matters, has not read the observations that the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) made on the radio on Sunday, in which he made it clear that the European rapid reaction force is not a standing force. There is no additional requirement. We only have one set of British forces and we will be able to use them once at the behest of a British Prime Minister.

May I tell my right hon. Friend how important European co-operation in defence is to my constituents who are employed on the production of the Eurofighter? They are greatly concerned that if the Conservative party were to return to government, many of their jobs would be at risk as a result of the party's opposition to European co-operation. Will my right hon. Friend assure me and my constituents that a Labour Government will never put those jobs at risk?

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. That matter shows how much the Conservative party has changed. It used consistently to support European co-operation through the Eurofighter project, but now questions whether it is a useful additional capability for the British armed forces—and certainly questions consistent involvement with our European partners in almost any aspect of defence co-operation. That must be a matter of grave concern to those people in the Conservative party who support co-operation in Europe.

Has the Secretary of State made any assessment of whether it is more likely that United States troops will be withdrawn from Bosnia as a result of the creation of the European rapid reaction force? If they were withdrawn, is he satisfied that the new European rapid reaction force could fill, fully and effectively, the role of the United States forces in that region?

The hon. Gentleman really should know that there is absolutely no connection between the two subjects that he thrusts together in that way. The American Administration, from the President down, has consistently supported the development of European defence co-operation, recognising that that co-operation is good both for Europe and for NATO.

If he will make a statement on the deployment of the armed forces to assist the public during the recent floods. [138573]

If he will make a statement on the deployment of the armed forces to assist the public during the recent floods. [138578]

Members of the armed forces from more than 60 different military units provided help for flood victims in numerous locations across 15 counties during the period 30 October to 14 November. In addition, personnel from Territorial Army units also participated. I congratulate them on their achievements in saving life and protecting property.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I draw particular attention to the work of the Territorial Army which, in my constituency, played a prominent role in saving lives during the floods a couple of years back. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the experience of the TA and other forces will be properly pulled together and recorded, so that they can learn the lessons of how to protect people during floods and make sure that their excellent work continues? Will he pay particular tribute to the Territorial Army, which does an outstanding job, especially in such circumstances?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her observations, particularly about the Territorial Army, although its members and Regular Army units would have been the first to pay tribute to the role of all the emergency services in responding to the crisis all over the country. There is no danger of the experience or expertise being lost, simply because the organisation of the Army, particularly in respect of emergency assistance, parallels precisely the arrangement of the emergency services. When there is a crisis requiring help from the armed forces, the decision to assist is taken at local level, working with the experience acquired on previous occasions.

I echo the sentiments and expressions of appreciation of all the hard work put in by service personnel. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the view of the Environment Agency that the help was crucial in the protection of places such as York? Can he confirm that if, sadly, the weather goes on being bad for the rest of the winter, enough sandbags and sand to fill them will be available?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations. I went to York during the crisis and saw for myself the work that the armed forces were doing—together, incidentally, with some tremendous work being conducted by the Environment Agency. That was a great example of all the emergency services and Government, at both national and local level, working extremely effectively together. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance, if not about the specific number of sandbags, at least that the armed forces stand ready to assist should they be required again.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the invaluable contribution of the TA in the recent floods underlines the mistake that he made by massively slashing 18,000 TA officers?

On the contrary: the fact that the TA was operating so successfully across many parts of the country demonstrates the wisdom of the decisions that we took.

Will the Secretary of State join me in paying particular tribute to the Royal Engineers based at Rippon and to the Environment Agency, particularly for the work that it did at Rawcliffe, where, as the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) implied, there were no sandbags available and no pumping? Does the Secretary of State accept that as a result not just of the cuts in the TA but of the overstretch brought about by the additional commitments of the regular forces, the severe weather forecasts for the Christmas and new year period are putting extreme pressure and intolerable demands on our armed forces?

It was—[interruption]—an example, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) indicates sotto voce, of the rapid reaction capability of the British armed forces. I had the opportunity and privilege of visiting both Selby and Chilwell during the crisis. A member of the armed forces said—it is significant in this context—that he was pleased to assist local communities in the United Kingdom. He added that it was the first time in his military career that he had helped in the United Kingdom.

What progress has been made by the land survey at RAF Portreath. [138574]

Earlier this year we engaged a specialist contractor, with significant experience in dealing with contaminated sites, to undertake further land quality assessment at RAF Portreath. This followed on from the phase 1 land quality assessment undertaken at the site by the RAF. The work is proceeding well, and sample results taken to date do not indicate any contamination by chemical weapons or their breakdown products. We have found small amounts of chemicals associated with general industrial activity.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he confirm that the survey will include the mine shafts and dumps at RAF Portreath? Does he agree that it is outrageous that previous Governments failed to conduct safety surveys?

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that she has undertaken on behalf of her constituents in pursuing this matter. This is the beginning and not the end of the investigations that we are undertaking at RAF Portreath. It is our intention carefully to examine the final results from this phase of the study when they are presented to us in the new year. We shall take further action as necessary.

Is the hon. Gentleman anticipating compensation claims from employees who claim that their health has suffered in consequence?

I have no record of any such claims.

If he will make a statement on developments in education and training for the armed forces. [138575]

As has been well demonstrated by the recent deployments to Sierra Leone and in the Balkans, the training of our armed forces is of a very high standard. To maintain that standard and ensure that our training and education arrangements for the armed forces and Ministry of Defence civilians continue to meet defence needs in the 21st century, my noble Friend Lord Robertson, when Secretary of State for Defence, announced a wide-ranging and fundamental review of education and training in the Department. This review is due to complete next spring, when I will make a further statement to the House.

Can my hon. Friend assure me that the review will make a high priority of ensuring that service personnel obtain qualifications that they can use in their future careers when they leave the armed forces, so that they can participate fully in civilian life, which in the past people leaving the armed forces have often had difficulty in doing?

Yes; there is no doubt that the level of training that we provide for our service men and women is superb, as demonstrated by the number of employers who are often actively trying to poach many of our trained personnel. There has been a difficulty when qualifications do not necessarily match civilian qualifications, and are less portable in civilian society, which these days is far more certificate based. We are working with the relevant agencies to ensure that the training that our people undertake in specific skills and more general areas are properly recognised with qualifications that they can carry. That is good for the armed forces and very good, as my hon. Friend has said, when service men and women re-enter the civilian employment market, when they are able to capitalise on the training and experience that they have gained.

Can the Minister explain what the effect has been on the throughput of trained pilots into the Royal Air Force of the grounding of the Tucano aircraft? What are the technical problems; when will they be solved; what will the additional cost to the defence budget of rectifying the problems be; where are they being sent; and is this part of the problem with the shortfall of RAF fast jet pilots? Is the problem a lack of training facilities or is it something much more fundamental?

There has been a failure of a part, and we are working with the aircraft's manufacturers to rectify the problem as soon as possible. That introduces a training gap, so those who are in training will undertake part of their training in Australia. We have already reached an agreement with the Royal Australian Air Force to cover that, so we hope to be able to maintain training. However, the hon. Gentleman identifies, rightly, the difficulties facing all air forces throughout the world: there is a shortfall of pilots, especially because of the extremely buoyant civilian air transport industry. We are working on several measures to alleviate the problem, some of which have been implemented, with others to follow shortly.

My hon. Friend will be aware that the search and rescue function of HMS Gannet in my constituency is under review and might be removed. Is he aware that the site has the potential to provide an excellent education and training centre; and will he consider that as an alternative use?

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. We are considering suitable alternative defence uses for the site and, as usual, discussing with appropriate local authorities alternative uses in the event that defence has to vacate the site. We recognise the contribution that the Prestwick area has made to defence and, as always, we want to assist the area as much as possible in dealing with the inevitable and unfortunate consequences that arise whenever we reduce a capability. However, I take my hon. Friend's point and will draw it to the attention of the defence training review.

Will the Government, on behalf of the whole nation, give their wholehearted support to the Royal British Legion campaign to construct an education centre on the site of the battle of the Somme, where 420,000 patriotic British soldiers laid down their lives? Is the Minister aware that the French department of the Somme and the European Union have each promised £300,000, but that the British Government, reluctantly, have promised only £30,000?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we hold regular discussions with the Royal British Legion on a number of issues. I am not aware that the issue he raises has been discussed by Ministers and the Royal British Legion, but I shall certainly check. We shall look into the matter and we thank him for raising it.

What recent discussions he has had with his Russian counterpart on European missile defence. [138576]

I have had no recent discussions with my Russian counterpart on European missile defence, but we regularly discuss ballistic missile defence during other consultations with the Russian Federation, and there has in recent months been discussion between NATO and Russia on the scope for co-operation on theatre missile defence and related issues. We want that dialogue to continue.

Does the Minister recall the offer that President Putin made to President Clinton last June for Russia to help to put in place a missile defence system for Europe? Did the Prime Minister discuss that offer with President Putin during his meetings with him in Moscow last week? Can he tell the House the nature and the source of the threat to Europe that could have motivated President Putin to make the offer in the first place?

It is right to say that Russia has presented, at least in outline, a number of proposals on co-operation on ballistic missile defence involving Russia and NATO; it is however fair to say that the Russians have not yet set out any specific details of those proposals. When they do—we have encouraged them to do so—we and our NATO allies will consider them carefully, as the House would expect.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the new United States Administration—whoever eventually wins—should take full account of both Russian and European concerns before taking any decision on national missile defence, and that they should pay heed to the report by our own Select Committee on Foreign Affairs?

That is the position that the present US Administration have taken. We believe that it is an extremely responsible position; indeed, we have encouraged it.

That is the position that the present US Administration have taken. We believe that it is an extremely responsible position; indeed, we have encouraged it.

What steps he plans to take to encourage participation in the cadet forces. [138579]

The cadet organisations are primarily responsible for their own recruitment, but the Ministry of Defence provides practical support and funding. Between April 1999 and April 2000, the total number of cadets rose by more than 3,600, to 131,954. We hope to see a continuation of that very encouraging trend over the coming years, so that more young people can benefit from the personal development opportunities offered by cadet organisations. If the hon. Gentleman is not already aware of the fact, I am happy to inform him that the Army cadet force in his constituency is the largest in Sussex.

I am grateful for that answer. People in Eastbourne and elsewhere take real pride in the obvious enthusiasm and commitment of the young people in the cadet forces, who go on to provide 35 per cent. Of serving officers in our armed forces. That being the case, why are the Government putting some cadet forces at risk by cutting back Territorial Army facilities?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, far from putting facilities at risk, we have guaranteed that whenever a TA hall is closed, funding will be provided to give cadets proper accommodation.

The cadet forces are warmly welcomed in Rotherham. I reached the highest rank of my life as company sergeant-major in my school's combined cadet force. That taught me quick thinking under pressure, the value of partnership and the need to accept discipline—which are all attributes of the parliamentary Labour party. Would my hon. Friend consider creating a special combined cadet force for the rabble on the Opposition Benches so that they can learn to march in step, speak in unison and stop accepting orders from extraneous people such as the editors of the Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph?

I am not sure how to answer that, other than to point out that if my hon. Friend's record is as good as he seemed to suggest, we may well need him in future.

Landlocked Bedfordshire is not normally associated with the Royal Navy. Nevertheless, there is a sea cadet corps unit in Flitwick, which is well supported by young people. For many years, that unit has requested affiliation to one of Her Majesty's warships. Will the Minister expedite that?

I should be very happy to follow up what sounds like a very good idea.

If he will make a statement on the deployment of British armed forces in Sierra Leone. [138580]

What the current deployment of forces is in Sierra Leone, including Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships in the immediate vicinity. [138586]

British armed forces are deployed in Sierra Leone in accordance with the Government's policy to help build a lasting peace in that country. That policy was set out by the Foreign Secretary in the House of Commons on 6 June. At present, there are about 600 service personnel deployed in Sierra Leone, including the crew of RFA Sir Percivale. That is higher than usual, owing to the handover that is currently under way from the joint taskforce headquarters to 1 Mechanised Brigade headquarters, which is taking over the role of providing the operational HQ. Once that handover is complete, the numbers in theatre will be over 400, depending on the type of training that is being conducted.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Will he assure me that, contrary to the political sniping from the Opposition, the recent landings involving the Royal Marines, HMS Ocean and HMS Fearless show that, as a result of the reforms, our forces are more deployable and capable than they were before? Will my hon. Friend further assure me that, despite the success of the training that is being given to the Government forces in Sierra Leone, there are no plans to withdraw United Kingdom forces?

I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the landing conducted by the amphibious group. It demonstrated once again the superb professionalism of our forces and, as he said, their deployability and flexibility. As my hon. Friend knows, we have been undertaking a considerable amount of training of the forces of the Government of Sierra Leone. However, there is still further work to be done, not only with troops, but with personnel at officer level. We will continue our work so that those forces can ensure peace and stability in their country.

Given that there was a clear justification for protecting British citizens in Sierra Leone and for providing support to its democratically elected Government—I acknowledge also that the recent show of strength by the amphibious ready group was justified and demonstrated its excellent capabilities—does the Secretary of State agree that it is impossible to justify an open-ended agreement that would effectively provide a garrison to Freetown or any expeditionary activities in the wider sense in Sierra Leone? Is not that a job for the United Nations and for a properly constituted international force? What agreements has the Secretary of State secured with other countries to provide such a force?

We are working with the United Nations to persuade other countries to make a significant contribution, and that work is starting to come to fruition. I would not say that our action was merely a show of strength. It was also a genuine exercise to demonstrate the deployability of our forces, not only in the situation in question, but in any comparable one. I do not want to give a defined time limit, not least because we do not want to provide an indication of termination to opposing people or forces who might take it the wrong way and be encouraged.

Will my hon. Friend say a little more about the tangible benefits of the training and explain whether the capability to deal with rebels is being significantly changed? Furthermore, does the training programme have a defined schedule and time scale to which we are working?

"Schedule" is an American word.

It is interesting that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is now becoming anti-American as well as anti-European. That is an historical throwback—now it is foreigners whom the Conservatives do not like.

The Secretary of State cannot be allowed to get away with blatantly inventing citations of Conservative policy. The Conservative party is utterly committed to the Eurofighter programme, which we launched. We are also looking forward to taking delivery of the first aircraft on forming the next Administration.

Opposition Defence Front Benchers—let alone other Conservatives Members—know all about ill discipline, as we have observed over recent days.

What his assessment is of the threat to the UK from nuclear weapons. [138581]

We assess that there is no significant threat to the United Kingdom from nuclear weapons at present, but we continue to monitor developments very closely.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his response. Does he accept that within five years the Iranian regime may have the capacity to produce nuclear weapons? Does not that make it essential for the British Government to give full support to America's steps towards ballistic missile defence?

The hon. Gentleman needs to distinguish carefully between a threat to the United States, which is the current concern of national missile defence, and a threat to the United Kingdom. As I said earlier, we continue to monitor threats from around the world as they might affect the United Kingdom and our allies.

My right hon. Friend knows of my interest in RAF Fylingdales, which is adjacent to my constituency. The people of Scarborough, Whitby and the north York moors are very interested in who will form the future American Administration. If a President Bush is appointed, many people in my constituency will be concerned about the likely effect on my part of the world, which may become a defence target. What discussions has my right hon. Friend had about the future of RAF Fylingdales in that respect?

The Americans have decided, for the moment at any rate, not to take national missile defence forward, and will not therefore be making any requests of the United Kingdom in relation to Fylingdales or any other facility that might be available until they reach a decision.

The next United States Administration is likely to take ballistic missile defence forward at an early stage. If they do so, will they have the involvement and support of the United Kingdom?

When and if a new Administration is appointed in the United States, and when and if they reach that conclusion, we might well consider it.

If he will make a statement on recent progress towards the headline goal on European Defence. [138582]

What recent discussions he has had on the European security and defence policy project with (a) the EU's Foreign Affairs Commissioner and (b) French Ministers. [138584]

As I have already made clear today, I attended the capability commitments conference on 20 and 21 November in Brussels, where European partners—both in the European Union and outside it—identified the type and level of forces that they might be able to make available to Petersberg operations. Those constitute not a standing European army but a pool of potentially available national forces. The UK contribution to the headline goal was announced to the House on 20 November.

Following the success of the conference, what other countries outside the European Union but in Europe have volunteered forces and facilities for the purpose of the Petersberg tasks?

At the conference there was a meeting not just among the 15 EU member states but among the 15 applicants for membership, all of which expressed willingness to participate in an appropriate way—according to their national capabilities—and all of which strongly supported the idea of developing a European capability. That contrasts with what I described to the House on 20 November as the complete isolation of the Conservative party, which appears in this context to be opposed not only to every European nation, but to the United States Administration.

I am sure that every Conservative Member applauds greater co-operation with our European allies in defence, and would applaud any greater commitment on their behalf to increasing their defence spending. But will the Secretary of State tell us his assessment of the motivation behind the enthusiasm of the French for the project, especially given that they left the NATO military structure in 1968 and show no inclination to return to it? Will the right hon. Gentleman also tell us his assessment of Turkey's reaction, given that throughout the cold war it was a vital European ally on the southern flank of NATO? Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what financial commitment any of our European allies have made to extra defence spending specifically for this project, in terms of training, headquarters planning or, indeed, C3I—command, control, communications and intelligence.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not seriously inviting me to assess French motivation. I find it difficult enough to understand the psychological obsessions of Conservative Members when it comes to questions affecting Europe.

Is not recent progress in European defence a result not only of Britain's leadership in Europe but of the qualitative shift in the relationship between Britain and individual European nation states?

I have certainly been puzzled in recent days by the attitude of certain elements of the Conservative party—what I might call their "ground zero" attitude to any event that took place before May 1997.

I absolutely agree that we need greater European capability and greater European co-operation. I agree with Lord Healey and Lord Owen; but I also agree with Lord Hurd, who stated clearly in 1993:

A common foreign and security policy does not transform the European Union into a defence organisation.—[Official Report, 30 March 1993; Vol.222, c. 179.]

would have meant that NATO and European defence ran alongside one other.—[Official Report, 22 November 2000; Vol. 357, c. 301.]

We have made it clear in the negotiations, in which we have been closely involved, that there will be a close link between the European Union rapid reaction capability and NATO planning processes. Indeed, much of the work on describing the scenarios that are part of the headline goal was done in NATO planning units. That will continue. We have made it absolutely clear that we anticipate the use of NATO planning processes in order to achieve deployment of any rapid reaction force, in a situation where, formerly, NATO itself was not engaged.

Here we go again. The Secretary of State does not bother to answer the question. All Ministers do is try to claim that our position will end co-operation and production on EFA—European fighter aircraft—and so on. Soon they will be talking about its being the end of televisions in Europe and of bath tubs. They never deal with the key point, which is: what is the initiative for? The reality is, as he knows, that the French said clearly in 1999, "You would never get a right of first refusal for NATO." If we do not get that right of first refusal, we will have NATO and the EU in due course disagreeing about which will operate. Is not that the point? There is no military capability enhancement. It is far from being a European rapid reaction force. It is not even European. It certainly is not rapid. But it is reactionary, anti-US and anti-NATO.

Perhaps it might help if I said it a little more slowly. I shall try to explain it in such a way that the Defence Secretary can understand—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah"]—so that the shadow Defence Secretary can understand it—[Interruption.] I already understand it. Let me make it clear. NATO fully supports the European Union's work on European defence. It absolutely unequivocally supports what is happening, as do the current Secretary-General of NATO, the United States President and the United States Defence Secretary. They have all said categorically that it is good for both European defence and NATO. Is the shadow Defence Secretary saying that they have all got it wrong—each and every one of them—and only he knows the truth? If that is his position, no one will believe it.

If the position gets even worse, and in order to maintain the peace, about which we are all concerned, has any discussion taken place at European level about using the rapid reaction force to stop rival Tory factions from tearing each other apart over Europe? Is that a possibility?

The Petersberg tasks include humanitarian relief, so that might be appropriate.

If he will make a statement on the merging of the WEU's functions with the EU. [138583]

The Western European Union is not merging with the European Union. As announced at the WEU Council of Ministers in Marseille on 13 November, the WEU is being wound down and it is planned that some of its functions will be transferred into the developing EU defence structures. Those functions will include the WEU Institute for Security Studies, the WEU satellite centre and the WEU multinational advisory police element in Albania. A residual WEU body will be maintained to service commitments under the modified Brussels treaty and to administer other remaining functions, pending decisions about their future.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State. I see that he has lost none of the Government's Orwellian talents in using language. The fact is that only one organisation will come out of what is effectively a merger of the Western European Union and the European Union. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to explain why, in 1997, the Government made it clear that such a merger—or, if he prefers, a joining together—of the two organisations would be a threat to NATO, whereas now the Government say that the same action will strengthen NATO. Which is right?

I feel that I should apologise to the hon. Gentleman for answering the original question before he asked his supplementary one—which, unfortunately, has already been dealt with. The reality is that the two bodies are not merging; significant parts of the WEU will still be in existence. His question has already been answered.

If he will make a statement on recruitment into the defence medical services. [138587]

Recruitment into training is generally satisfactory. We have increased our targets for medical cadets and trainee nurses, and I am happy to say that we have attracted a good response. Recruiting fully or partially trained personnel, particularly doctors and nurses, is more difficult, and we are currently working on measures to improve that.

I thank my hon. Friend for that response. Does he agree that the Department could work very closely with the NHS in dealing with the difficulty in recruiting trained people to the defence medical services? As the NHS knows a little bit about the difficulties of recruitment, are there discussions with it on how to ensure that the armed forces get the very best personnel that they deserve?

I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. A number of liaison groups and committees are discussing a range of matters of common interest, such as personnel issues, operational planning and the application to the defence medical services of developments in civilian medical practice. Additionally, a joint steering group has been established by the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Health, with the Scottish Executive and the Wales Office also represented. Its work includes matters such as future manpower planning and the recruiting of reserve medical personnel. Moreover, I work very closely with my ministerial colleagues in the Department of Health on what I consider to be a very important issue.

Will the Minister confirm that, at a time of extreme manpower shortages, more than 5,000 personnel are medically unfit? Will he also confirm that, this year, the defence medical services took a hit in so-called efficiency savings in its budget, and that the number of people on that unfit list is still increasing?

I have been concerned for some time about the number of personnel who are medically downgraded. That is why the defence medical services has recently introduced schemes in certain hospitals to hasten people through surgical treatment. It is also why, when I recently visited Redford barracks, in Scotland, I was very pleased to see a very strong system for providing orthopaedic and physiotherapy support, which provides quite a dramatic means of shortening the time in which personnel are downgraded.

If he will make a statement on the programme of exchanges between British armed forces and those of other EU states. [138588]

British armed forces carry out wide-ranging exchanges with the armed forces of other European Union states, as they do with other, non-European Union states. The exchanges are designed to be of mutual benefit to both parties.

Given the Secretary of State's overwhelming enthusiasm for the European rapid reaction force, can he give us any good reason why the force catalogue is not to be published, so that we could see precisely what the other European nations are committing to the force?

If the hon. Gentleman had stuck to his question and asked about bilateral exchanges, I would have been able to tell him that, even in the context of improving European capabilities, it is important that forces work together, regardless of whether those forces are in the European Union or in other European nations. When the forces are deployed together into crises, it helps that they have had previous experience of training and conducting exercises together and of developing the type of mutual understanding that is necessary. That is precisely why it is such a good thing that we have developed the headline goal and improvements in European capability.

If he will make a statement on accommodation for (a) single and (b) married members of the British armed forces. [138589]

If he will make a statement on accommodation for (a) single and (b) married members of the British armed forces. [138594]

The Defence Housing Executive, which manages and allocates service housing for armed forces personnel and their families, is continuing with its modernisation programme of service families accommodation in Great Britain and is on target to complete 3,000 upgrades to standard 1 at a projected cost this financial year of about £68 million. The DHE aims to bring most of its core housing stock—that which is needed in the longer term—up to the standard required over the next five years. We have a firm projects programme and contract strategy in place to ensure that this programme can be achieved.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the effectiveness of the armed forces is linked closely to morale, which is linked closely to standards of accommodation and conditions, and that there are areas in which accommodation falls way below the standards that we should have in the armed forces? The five-year plan is ambitious and encouraging. Will he do all that he can to accelerate it and put things right as soon as possible?

I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. I have recently seen accommodation in some barracks in which I was ashamed to think of our armed forces personnel being housed. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces and I are engaged in constructive discussions with officials to accelerate the programme of upgrading.