If he will make a statement on his Department's policy on involving the armed forces in the community.[152698]

The armed forces are an integral part of the community. As the strategic defence review stressed, the armed forces serve the community by providing it with the defence it needs and by acting as a force for good in the world. They are also actively involved in the community—whether through their support of youth initiatives, their involvement in ceremonial duties, their participation in charity work, or their support to the civil authorities when the community as a whole is faced with an emergency.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his response, and I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the armed forces for their work in such emergencies. Will my hon. Friend specify the details of the specialist assistance that the armed forces are offering to tackle the foot and mouth outbreak?

Following the discussion with MAFF last week, the Ministry of Defence has agreed to provide MAFF with help in supervising the disposal of carcases of slaughtered livestock, focusing especially on the backlog of carcases that has built up. A logistics headquarters is being established in Devon to co-ordinate the activities of small teams drawn from the armed forces and deployed in the field. Those teams will reduce the burden on veterinary surgeons by helping to co-ordinate the efforts of the private contractors employed to dispose of the carcases. In doing so, they will speed up the disposal process and release vets to tackle the spread of the disease.

I am sure that all Members will join the Minister in warmly thanking the armed forces for their work in aiding the civil power and local communities. He has touched on the foot and mouth outbreak, but could he be slightly more specific? Will he tell the House how many members of the armed forces are involved at present, and whether he intends—if the crisis continues—to respond to any request by MAFF to use the armed forces on a larger scale, especially units of the Corps of Royal Engineers and the Royal Logistic Corps?

Yes, we stand ready to respond rapidly to further requests from MAFF, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, it is always a case of striking a balance between the availability of service from civilian contractors and, in many cases, the geographical disposition of that service. At present, about 300 members of the armed forces are engaged, and about 50 two-man teams will be employed on local liaison work as well. The armed forces are already undertaking that work, but of course we recognise the scale of the problem and stand ready to respond.

We are grateful to the Minister for explaining the work carried out in association with MAFF on the outbreak of foot and mouth. Will he explain any forward planning that might involve more members of the armed forces? Will that include not only the veterinary service and the Logistic Corps but an increasing number of Engineers, with their equipment? Will he tell us why the MOD is excluded from the Prime Minister's taskforce on foot and mouth disease, given that four other Departments are involved and when—obviously—the MOD will be crucial in the operation?

Certainly we stand ready to provide assistance, including on the engineering side. However, there are considerable resources in the construction industry that can undertake such work.

What measures are being taken to enhance joint military capability between the UK and its north American and European allies. [152699]

Work is progressing in NATO on the defence capabilities initiative in the five key areas of effective engagement, survivability of forces and infrastructure, command and control, sustainability and logistics, and deployability and mobility.

On the eve of his visit to the United States, will my right hon. Friend tell the House what message he will take to the American Secretary of Defence? In particular, will my right hon. Friend emphasise to Mr. Rumsfeld that the aims of the European defence security policy are consistent with the aims of NATO?

There will be a series of meetings in Washington in the next few days to ensure absolute consistency between NATO's efforts to improve military capabilities through the defence capabilities initiative and European efforts to do precisely the same thing through the achievement of the Helsinki headline goal. That is the message that I shall take to Washington.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that for this country to take part in any major operation involving substantial airlift or intelligence capabilities—in other words, any major operation—would require American support? At a time when we may be close to a major outbreak of fresh conflict in the Balkans, will he tell us what extra resources our European allies are making available to match the extra commitments that we shall make under the European commitment that he has just described?

We have always made it clear that we would regard NATO and, therefore, United States support for such an operation as being the way in which we would undertake any major operation. A number of our European allies are certainly increasing their defence expenditure, but, equally, we have made it similarly clear that the vital matter is not simply how much money is spent—important though that is—but what it is spent on. That is precisely why it is so important that we pursue, through the DCI, improvements in NATO's capabilities, including heavy lift, as well as the absolutely consistent approach in the Helsinki headline goal to improve European capability. I take it from the hon. Gentleman's observations that he supports the efforts that we are making.

On joint military capabilities, some weeks ago 1 asked the Ministry of Defence what happened to Kosovo Liberation Army terrorists when they were arrested by KFOR and taken to Camp Bond Steel. Perhaps I am still waiting for an answer because, far from charging the terrorists, it would appear that the US contingent of KFOR was training them in the American sector and allowing them to smuggle arms and launch attacks across the borders of Serbia and Macedonia. What are the leaders of KFOR going to do about the situation in Macedonia? Are we simply going to abandon them to this attack?

I am sorry that my hon. Friend appears to be misinformed. The United States has made it absolutely clear that it is giving no active or tacit support to any kind of terrorist activity. It remains entirely even-handed in the way it deals with terrorist activity, from whichever ethnic community it comes. I assure her that it is not engaged in activity of the kind that she describes.

Does the Secretary of State agree that we may be about to witness a real test of joint military capability if the dangerous situation in Macedonia deteriorates any further? If that happens, does he agree that it may be necessary for NATO to do more than strengthen patrols on the border? At a time when the United States is indicating that it intends to withdraw troops from Bosnia, does not the situation in Macedonia provide an ideal opportunity for the European nations to show that they are serious about military capability and about Europe taking more responsibility for European defence issues?

I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that those in the NATO capitals have been in regular contact in recent days about the increasing tension on the borders of Macedonia. There have been discussions, which continue, about the appropriate action for KFOR to take and who should initiate it. At this stage, I am not in a position to tell the House more than that, except to say that we regard the situation there with grave concern and we will take appropriate action when necessary.

If he will make a statement on his plans to improve single living accommodation and married quarters overseas for service personnel. [152700]

The Government are determined that our military personnel will have good living accommodation. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a major new initiative for improving service single living accommodation in the United Kingdom. We also plan upgrade programmes for both single living and family accommodation overseas. Significant projects are already in hand, such as the rebuilding and refurbishing of all accommodation in Cyprus. The new money made available to the defence budget in the 2000 spending review has allowed us to increase the investment in upgrade programmes elsewhere.

I welcome the announcement on improving the standard of service accommodation made last week by my right hon. Friend. On a recent visit to Episkopi barracks in Cyprus, I was impressed by the professionalism of the 1st battalion, the King's Own Scottish Borderers, but appalled by the standard of single living accommodation that it has endured during its two-year tour of duty, so I welcome the Minister's assurance that it will be improved. Can he also assure me that, as the first battalion should have transferred to Catterick by now, the standard of accommodation there will represent an improvement? Does he agree that one can only ask what the previous Government were doing for 18 years to allow such substandard accommodation to be provided for our armed services personnel?

My hon. Friend will be well aware that the history of the previous Government was one of a steady and slow decline in the overall quality of accommodation. I have visited many sites in the United Kingdom and Germany and I have made it clear that I find them unacceptable. She will be glad to know that our additional money for overseas investment is projected to build up to £55 million a year over the next few years. That will go a long way to remedying the deficits. The problem cannot be cured overnight, but we have made a start and we have promised that we will continue that work.

I do not want to be churlish, so I am bound to say that I welcome the investment in accommodation, especially that for Aldershot, because the Minister knows that the accommodation in Montgomery lines is particularly poor. However, it is appalling that, five days after the Secretary of State for Defence smuggled out the information by way of a written answer and despite my representations to his office, I have still not been told what investment will be made in Aldershot. I learned from the Minister for the Armed Forces, speaking on Southern Counties Radio, that there would be £3 million of investment for Aldershot, but will the Under-Secretary tell us precisely what that means for my constituents, or whether it is just money for the future and another Labour mirage?

The hon. Gentleman may not have wanted to be churlish, but he certainly made a dashed good stab at it. Given the many sites that need upgrading, it has sadly not been possible to notify every right hon. and hon. Member about our plans. However, when we have specific proposals, they will be informed about them. Late last year, I saw the situation at Montgomery lines at first hand and we have managed to identify separate moneys that will go towards the temporary upgrading of the accommodation on that site. However, we recognise that we cannot replace all the substandard accommodation overnight.

When he last met the French Defence Minister to discuss European security. [152701]

I last met Alain Richard on 9 February this year at Cahors to discuss a range of defence issues of mutual interest, including European security.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. When the Prime Minister referred in The Sunday Telegraph yesterday to those people who really may have

"an agenda to destroy NATO",

The Prime Minister was referring not to Governments, but to those individuals who seek to undermine NATO.

Name names.

For example, the hon. Gentleman should think of those who go from the United Kingdom to Washington to pour scorn into the ears of those who have not considered the matter in detail. By undermining or seeking to undermine European co-operation, they are of course undermining the United Kingdom—not something that any British Government or any responsible British Prime Minister would seek to do.

If it was necessary to have a common European security policy with the United States to stop the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo—a policy that I urged and fully supported—is it not now necessary to have again a common European security policy to stop Albanian extremists, who are not representative of the Albanian people, undermining the peace and security that have come to the Balkans?

I made it clear in response to an earlier question that NATO capitals are looking carefully at the situation on the border with Macedonia. We regard the matter with grave concern and, certainly, we are taking appropriate action to deal with any kind of extremism from any ethic community.

Given that the European rapid reaction force will draw on the same forces as NATO, how will it be able to engage in an operation in which, by definition, NATO does not wish to engage, without reducing NATO's capabilities for the operations in which it does wish to participate? Have the French, for example, said that they intend to allocate a single extra soldier, sailor or airman to the defence of Europe, or will they simply raid the forces allocated to NATO?

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. We have made it clear that we would distinguish between the war-fighting activity in which we would expect NATO to be involved, for which forces that have been allocated to it are properly and suitably trained, and the peacekeeping Petersberg tasks, in which we would expect the European Union to engage. That is why there is no inconsistency between our efforts with NATO and the EU to improve military capability.

Given the many statements made in Washington and London about the importance of NATO and Europe working side by side, why were the French Government not informed by the Americans when they bombed Baghdad?

Answer that.

I shall try to deal with a number of factual errors that my right hon. Friend has set out. In the first instance, the so-called bombing of Baghdad was a self-defence operation, conducted by the coalition forces in defence of their aircraft. Although some targets were near Baghdad, it is stretching the facts to suggest that they were in Baghdad. As for information that is communicated to the French, it is for the coalition to determine the appropriate time when allies are informed. I am sure that they were informed at an appropriate stage.

The Secretary of State is using sophistry to cover the Prime Minister's words. The Prime Minister made his position clear in an interview in The Sunday Telegraph, in which he said:

"well, if we don't get involved in European defence … then those people who really may have an agenda to destroy NATO will have control of it."

I have already answered that; I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not paying attention. Perhaps he was also not paying attention when the previous Government set out and signed up to a common European defence policy at Maastricht. Certainly, the great majority of Conservative Members supported that, although I suppose that I should excuse him because he opposed it. Does the Conservative party oppose everything to do with the EU instinctively, even when it is clearly in Britain's best interests to participate? Has its loose coalition on Europe broken down?

Yet again, it is quite clear that the Prime Minister did not tell the Secretary of State about those people who will be destroying NATO, because he has not got a brief to that effect. The reality is simple. As ever, the Government are facing in two directions at once. On the one hand, they are telling the Americans, "Don't worry. Trust us"; on the other, they are saying to the people who will destroy NATO, "Don't worry. You can trust us, too. We're all in this together." Is it not the reality that since St. Malo, they have colluded in a process that will deliver the destruction of NATO? In addition, the Prime Minister said in the interview that he was a great believer in natural law—we now know that the Government spend all their time flying by the seat of their pants.

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman finds the world such a confusing and difficult place. I am sure that it would be simpler for all of us if, like the modern Conservative party, we simply turned our back on any sort of international development, irrespective of whether it was in Britain's interest, as well as on any sort of European development. The position that the hon. Gentleman sets out is that it is all very complicated and too difficult for us, so it is far easier to stick our head firmly in the sand and leave it there.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that many years ago at Labour party conferences there used to be long resolutions from the constituency parties that advocated the withdrawal from NATO? I and one or two of my hon. Friends used to support that proposition, and I am not a supporter of the Common Market either. I get my cake and eat it too—I am quite enjoying this little spat and I hope that it will go on for a long time.

My hon. Friend will recall that in those days, I was sometimes required to appear before the Bolsover general management committee. It is fair to say that on those occasions, although I was a minority of one, I consistently supported membership of both the European Union and NATO. I am delighted that the Labour party and now the Labour Government have also adopted that position.

How many people left the Royal Air Force in each of the past three years. [152702]

A total of 14,138 people left the RAF in the three years ending 31 December 2000; 4,847 left the service in 1998, 4,712 in 1999 and 4,579 in 2000. That was balanced against intake figures of 4,088 during 1998, 4,759 during 1999 and 3,731 during 2000.

Those figures are accurately reflected at RAF Lyneham in my constituency, where each year up to 5 per cent. more people leave than come in. That is not merely a result of overstretch caused by Sierra Leone and the Balkans; it is also caused by very poor living conditions and failure to invest in infrastructure at RAF Lyneham. Does the Minister agree that more people are now leaving the RAF than are joining and that that makes a mockery of the fine words in the strategic defence review's "Policy for People", which stated that

"delivery of tangible improvements in overstretch and undermanning"

I did not read out the outflow figures for the years under the previous Conservative Administration. We inherited a figure of 7,512 in 1997; in 1996—the Conservatives' last full year in office—the outflow figure was 10,544; in 1995 it was 5,610, and in 1994 it was 6,394. In every one of those years, there was a greater outflow than any that has occurred under the Labour Government. We are matching intake figures to outflow figures. The RAF recruited 98.6 per cent. of its requirement last year.

Will the Minister arrange for those figures to be analysed to determine whether there is evidence of a significant number of people with minor disabilities leaving the RAF when those disabilities do not prevent them from undertaking their responsibilities; and whether there is any danger of discrimination against people with minor disabilities in RAF recruitment?

The right hon. Gentleman mixes two issues: first, requirements on recruitment and, secondly, changes in people's health and abilities occurring during their service. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is undertaking a review of service intake to match up the number of those with minor disabilities to modern day requirements.

What steps he has taken to promote the regeneration of former RAF bases for commercial aviation use. [152703]

A number of former RAF bases have been or are in the process of being sold for civil aviation purposes, including Finningley in my hon. Friend's constituency, Manston, Farnborough, and Kemble. Our usual policy is to market a former airfield for civil aviation purposes where that is consistent with the current planning process and Government accounting regulations.

I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. May I congratulate the Government on their decision in 1997 to stop the previous Government's proposal to turn RAF Finningley into the fourth prison in my constituency? May I also congratulate them on excluding the option of quarrying on one of the best runways in the country and disposing of it for aviation use?

I can certainly agree with my hon. Friend's final remarks. Finningley offers a superb site for an airport. I understand that Doncaster metropolitan borough council has approved a planning application to develop a major international airport site and that it has been called in for determination by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Several airfields have been or are being sold for purposes which, we firmly believe, will continue to expand civil aviation.

In order to meet the strategic defence review's commitment to raise gross receipts of £700 million from the sale of surplus defence land by 2002—perhaps the Minister will confirm that that is on course—is it the Government's policy to get the maximum commercial return from such spare land, subject to planning permission, or to designate particular areas of spare defence land for particular purposes?

The position is not quite as the hon. Gentleman says. We discuss things carefully with local councils—with their elected representatives if necessary, but certainly with the planning authorities—to try to establish the best use of a site, which then goes forward for bidding in the usual tendering process. In those circumstances, we seek to get the best possible commercial return from the deal.

When he last met his French counterpart to discuss naval co-operation between France, the UK and the USA. [152704]

I regularly discuss bilateral naval co-operation with both my French and American colleagues. When I last met my French counterpart on 9 February in Cahors, naval co-operation formed part of the background to our discussions. The close nature of our naval co-operation with the United States was most recently demonstrated by agreement to the permanent stationing of a British sailor on the USS Winston Churchill, which was launched last week.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Given the similarity in the size of the French and British naval forces, will my right hon. Friend set out for the House the full extent of co-operation between them? In particular, will he make clear the synergy between that co-operation and work with the United States navy?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There is an agreement on naval co-operation with the French, which covers a wide range of activity, including operations. In addition, 20 formal working groups have been established, dealing with training, submarine co-operation, operational planning, doctrine communications and personnel exchanges. That agreement was drawn up in 1996 and signed by the then Secretary of State for Defence. As my hon. Friend said, the size of our respective navies means that there are significant opportunities for co-operation with the United States navy, which we pursue vigorously.

Like the Secretary of State, I welcome co-operation with the United States, but does he not accept that co-operation on submarines, especially with the French navy, is crucial to our long-term training for submarine warfare?

Co-operation on submarines is at a relatively early stage; visits were conducted to one another's ports only recently. There are obviously matters of great national sensitivity surrounding our nuclear submarine fleet, and I am sure that the French believe that that is so for them, too. There are certainly practical benefits in co-operation, not least in the light of the appalling disaster and loss of the Russian submarine Kursk.

If he will make a statement on the steps being taken to improve retention in the armed forces. [152705]

Armed forces retention is being tackled as a matter of the highest priority. We have introduced a wide range of measures aimed at improving retention through policies that genuinely reflect the priorities of our people and their families, both at home and on deployment. Last month, we announced that we had accepted the Armed Forces Pay Review Body's recommendations in full, and our people will see that reflected in their pay packets in May, backdated to April. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced our plans to spend up to £200 million a year on an upgrade programme to bring single living accommodation up to the standards expected by service personnel in the 21st century.

I am staggered by that answer. I do not know whether I have a supplementary question left, after that. I am pleased that my hon. Friend recognises that the welfare of our services personnel is an important component of retention. Although good housing is important, as other hon. Members have observed, does my hon. Friend agree that there are other factors, apart from those that he mentioned— [HON. MEMBERS: "He mentioned quite a lot."] He did, indeed. I refer to factors such as counselling when people run into personal difficulties, good schooling for children, and as my hon. Friend suggested, that partners are kept in contact with one another when they are separated, especially when people serve for long periods overseas. [Interruption.]

We should understand the dilemma that the Opposition are in: those are all issues that they neglected over 18 years. We are rectifying matters. There is a long list of step that we are taking to improve the welfare of our forces, who will note the way in which the Opposition responded to our announcements. The improvements have long been required, and they recognise the pressure that our people are under and the contribution that they make. As my hon. Friend knows, we are dealing with schooling in this country through the service families taskforce and also through the service education system, under my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. We are introducing real change; the Opposition did nothing about it.

I am sure that, like me, most hon. Members appreciate that. Service men and women know only too well who let them down over the previous 18 years. Most of what the Minister announced is welcome, but will he deal with two issues for which he was responsible? One is the speedy settlement of service men's compensation claims, not least the claims of men who did not have proper malaria cover when they were in Sierra Leone. The other concerns the anomalies relating to Pay 2000 and the way in which that has undermined the rates pay of for senior enlisted personnel.

No one will lose money under Pay 2000. We are always prepared to examine anomalies as a system is introduced. As the hon. Gentleman will know from his previous incarnation, pay systems are extremely difficult, but from the response that we have had, we believe that Pay 2000 is a welcome development. With regard to malaria, the situation has been slightly overplayed by the media. The facts that we have ascertained do not bear out the scare stories, but where there is liability, as I understand there clearly is in one case, there will be speedy settlement of that claim.

Before the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. lddon) gets too carried away by his Government's propaganda, I should tell him that a number of the announcements that have just been made are recycled and were originally made months ago.

I have to give it to the hon. Gentleman—he is certainly a good sport and is being very fair. It is good of him to remind the House and the country of his Government's lamentable record regarding the sackings, or compulsory redundancies, that occurred in the armed forces, and of the huge numbers of people in the Army whose employment was terminated early. That had a considerable effect on recruitment; indeed, the previous Government left us with significant under-recruitment. In a period of rising employment, with the lowest unemployment figures for 25 years, it is a tribute to our recruitment teams that they have been able to maintain the position, despite the appalling circumstances with which the Conservatives and their gross mismanagement left us. It is good of him to remind us of that.

When temporary additional accommodation for members of the Parachute Regiment will be provided within the Colchester garrison. [152706]

I am pleased to say that recruitment to the Parachute Regiment is currently buoyant. We expect it to be 45 personnel over establishment by August this year. I am sorry to say, however, that that has led to a shortage of service accommodation in Colchester. The private finance initiative project at Colchester will address that problem. In the short term, temporary accommodation will be used to alleviate the situation. We expect that to be available for use by the Parachute Regiment by mid-August.

Does the Under-Secretary accept that the previous Government's privatisation of Army married quarters at a give-away sales price, added to the MOD's lack of forward planning, means that more than 200 members of the Parachute Regiment are renting more than 70 private houses in Colchester—a town that already has the worst homelessness record in the east of England? Will he give an assurance that the target date of mid-August will be advanced? The Parachute Regiment has been in Colchester for the best part of a year, so the forward planning should have been done long ago and the accommodation should be available now.

I fully accept the catalogue of difficulties that the hon. Gentleman describes. I assure him that the temporary bed spaces, of which there will be 224 in all, will be available in August, when we need them. Regrettably, a number of personnel—primarily officers and senior non-commissioned officers—will continue to be accommodated in married quarters. Some of them may have to remain in private rented accommodation, but the new spaces will have an enormous effect on easing the problem.

I accept that the money for single soldiers' accommodation in Colchester and elsewhere is welcome, but the Under-Secretary will know that the £100 million a year extra that is being spent on accommodation exceeds the whole defence budget increase, as set out in the comprehensive spending review. It is now well known in the Ministry of Defence that the long-term costings process has been absolutely bloody and that serious consequences will be announced. When can we expect to learn the results of the long-term costings process?

I seem to remember that the hon. Gentleman was responsible for advising the previous Government on some of the appalling policies that they introduced. I am happy to say that we have managed to secure valuable additional resources for accommodation, which should be welcomed by every hon. Member. That has not been done at the expense of any other long-term planning. We have decided that there should be a proper balance in the allocation of resources. For too long, the previous Government allowed accommodation to go to rack and ruin—something that this Government are no longer prepared to tolerate.

What his latest assessment is of the impact of the United States proposal for a national missile defence on UK defence policy. [1527071

If he will make a statement about the US national missile defence proposal. [152711]

The United Kingdom shares the United States concerns about the problem of missile proliferation and will continue to work with that country in tackling it. It is clearly not in Britain's interest for our closest ally to feel vulnerable to attack. We understand the role that missile defence can play as one element of a response. However, until the US makes specific proposals, it remains premature to reach judgments about the impact on UK defence policy, although, as we have made clear, we want to be helpful to our closest ally.

The Secretary of State said that he shared the United States assessment of threat. When the Western European Union's Technological and Aerospace Committee went to Russia last month, we found that Russia also shared that assessment. Will the right hon. Gentleman now take a robust lead in promoting discussion in NATO between the United States, Russia and our European allies on shared missile defence, which would deter any rogue state that has weapons of mass destruction from threatening to deploy them?

We have already held several discussions in NATO about missile defence; I am sure that they will continue. We have encouraged the United States to discuss Russia's problem with Russia, which also suggested a proposal for missile defence. NATO is evaluating that. That process will continue, and it is sensible for all the countries to consider carefully the offensive and defensive systems that are designed to deal with nuclear proliferation.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is unease about the US missile defence system? Does he also agree that it is reckless for the Conservative party to give unfettered support to the project at this stage, when discussions are continuing between the US and other NATO partners?

I do not recognise my hon. Friend's description of the UK Government's position. We have made it clear that it is sensible for discussions to take place among allies in NATO. We have always encouraged the US to hold discussions with Russia and China. Discussions with Russia are under way. However, we have also said that we should not rush into such a project. It should be considered calmly and responsibly, in full consultation with allies. I am delighted that the US has adopted that position.

We all accept that it will take some time before a system is developed. However, why has the Secretary of State got such a hang-up about accepting the principle of the US programme? I understand from his comments that he has not accepted it.

I am sorry if the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood my remarks. He mentioned a programme; although the previous US Administration made a proposal, the new US Administration have not proposed a specific programme. We have made it clear to the US that we want to be helpful when it makes a specific proposal. However, at Camp David, President Bush said:

"As to whether there will be sites or no sites in the United Kingdom, that's too early to determine, because t have yet to propose to the Prime Minister what will work."

The Secretary of State is engaged in the new Labour process of sending different messages to different groups in the hope that they do not speak to each other. I know that the Ministry of Defence has told him that he must make a decision. There is a threat, which is likely to grow in the next four to five years, to the UK. The question for the Government is, therefore, not whether the Americans feel threatened, but whether a threat to the United Kingdom is developing. If they agree that there is such a threat, they should say that they support ballistic missile defence in principle. They said that about the euro, why cannot they say it about the defence of the UK?

I sha11 deal with the hon. Gentleman's substantive point about the threat. While we have always recognised that there is a potential threat to Britain's deployed forces and we would want to investigate and examine it to seek ways of protecting the deployed forces, we have not yet been advised that there is any threat to the United Kingdom today.

If he will make a statement on the development of a European rapid reaction force. [152710]

There is no standing European rapid reaction force. Efforts in the European Union are focused on improving military capabilities to meet the headline goal. Nations identified initial contributions to this goal last November. We are now engaged in detailed analysis of the improvements required, and the action needed to put those improvements into effect.

I do not think that I have ever heard a British Prime Minister say that the Opposition have been effective in changing attitudes in the American Administration. However, that is what the Prime Minister said in his interview with The Sunday Telegraph yesterday, although he was rather rude about it. I seem to remember words such as "poison", "ears" and "dripping" being used. I wonder whether this could have influenced the United States Defence Secretary's comment that

"We need to be vigilant to see that we don't do anything that could inject an instability into the alliance

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has become so tired and cynical in opposition that he cannot accept words at their face value. The United States Administration have set out their position very clearly, as did the new US President at Camp David. Like their predecessors, they want European defence to develop in a way that strengthens NATO, and so do we. The Prime Minister agreed with the United States President on that at Camp David. Mr. Rumsfeld also said, in the course of the interview to which the hon. Gentleman referred, that the devil was in the detail, and he was right. We are determined to ensure that those details continue to be developed in ways that will support and strengthen the alliance. That is the position of the British Government, and will continue to be so.

On the development of a European rapid reaction force, does my right hon. Friend agree that training is imperative, and that Whale island in Portsmouth in my constituency has unique facilities that ought to be used to cross-pollinate the value that we can obtain from such facilities?

I had an excellent visit to my hon. Friend's constituency, and I assure him that it was not in any way affected by the somewhat tendentious headlines that followed. I was certainly very impressed by what I saw on Whale island and I thought that it provided an excellent facility. As he knows, the question of armed forces training is still being reviewed right across the United Kingdom. I cannot, therefore, give him a specific answer to his question today, save to say that he has mounted an extremely vigorous and effective campaign on behalf of his constituents and I am sure that he will continue to harry and harass Ministers with the considerable ability that he has already displayed.

I am sorry that the Secretary of State is being given a bad press wherever he goes. Some of us understand that.

I know that the hon. Gentleman, who was a Minister in the last Government, is an expert on bad press. I assure the House that the limited criticism that occurred in a Portsmouth paper following my visit is not something over which I am likely to lose any sleep; but should 1 require advice on dealing with bad publicity, I shall be grateful for the hon. Gentleman's implied offer of assistance. [HON. MEMBERS: "What was the headline?"] It is a matter of private grief. I shall leave it to the House of Commons Library to reveal.

How many jobs were (a) created and (b) sustained as a result of procurement decisions in the north-west since 1997. [152712]

It is estimated that 350,000 jobs are dependent on defence expenditure and equipment exports. Over 60,000 new contracts are placed each year. The Ministry of Defence does not record the number of jobs created or sustained as a result of each individual procurement decision, but it is estimated that a substantial number of jobs in the north-west of England depend directly on defence equipment expenditure by the Ministry of Defence, and that many more will be created as a result of our recent procurement decisions.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, while the Eurofighter is important to the future effectiveness of the RAF, it is also important to the future of the economy of the north-west, where it is sustaining and creating thousands of jobs? Will he assure me that, unlike the Conservative party, he will remain committed to the project?

I am happy to give that absolute assurance. Hopefully, the development of the A400M will mean a long-term future for employment in the aircraft industry in the area for many years.

Are not the defence industries in the north-west, as elsewhere, important not just for jobs but for improving the technological base of industry as a whole? Will the Minister—in the words of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—seek to be helpful to the United States in regard to any research programme, development and, ultimately, work that could ensue from ballistic missile defence?

Perhaps the best example I can give of a tangible project with which we are dealing, as opposed to the fantasy to which the hon. Gentleman refers—at present, anyway— [Interruption.] If we could have fewer moronic remarks from Opposition Front Benchers, I might be able to answer their hon. Friend's question.

What steps he is taking to improve the retention of pilots in the RAF. [152713]

The retention of pilots is a critical problem, not just for the RAF but for other armed forces around the world. Many pilots choose to leave the services at an early opportunity to pursue a second career with civil airlines. Improving pilot retention rates is therefore one of our highest priorities. Indeed, that was reflected in the announcement of the armed forces pay award for 2001, which, in addition to a 3.7 per cent. increase in basic salary for all ranks, will result in increases in flying pay. There will also be the introduction of a targeted financial retention incentive for RAF aircrew of up to £10,000 available for two years, linked to a commitment to continue serving. The scheme is an interim measure pending the outcome of the comprehensive review of aircrew retention that is being initiated.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, and welcome the response that he gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon). Retention levels decreased to an all-time low in 1996, and the measures that he has introduced are welcome. However, can he assure me that the matter will be kept under constant review, and that new measures will be introduced as times change and they become necessary?

Yes, I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. We are also in discussions with other NATO countries on sharing experiences of the issue. Additionally, we believe that some of the other measures that we have highlighted today, particularly those on accommodation, will help to assist with retention.