If he will make a statement on military action in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. [156926]

The Government support Macedonia's right to defend its territorial integrity and sovereignty, including with proportionate and appropriate military action. We are giving a range of non-lethal military equipment to the Macedonian Government to assist them. We have a small number of troops based in Macedonia, providing logistics support for UK forces in Kosovo, and a defence adviser working with the Macedonian Ministry of Defence. In Kosovo, UK troops are providing reinforcements to the Multi-National Brigade (East) region in an area that includes the Macedonian border.

Is the Macedonian Ministry of Defence, as opposed to the Macedonian Government, being co-operative?

Yes.

If he will make a statement on his Department's procurement policies. [156927]

The essence of our procurement policy is to secure the best equipment capability at the best value for money, through competition and prime contracting where viable. Our Smart acquisition programme is enhancing the efficiency of our acquisition process by streamlining the organisation, introducing new techniques and commercial best practice, building a closer and more constructive relationship with industry and improving the training and development of our acquisition personnel.

The Government have just finished paying between £30 million and £60 million to refit 1,100 CVR(T) tanks with diesel engines under a non-competitive contract. Were the Government aware before that contract was granted that those new engines would not operate in an A1 climate, such as that in the middle east; or was that key drawback of the new engines only discovered after the contract was awarded?

That matter has been referred to before in the House and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the single-source procurement strategy was adopted because Alvis Vehicles Ltd. is the design authority for CVR(T) and has certain proprietary intellectual property rights over the vehicle. On the hon. Gentleman's specific question, I understand that there are no particular problems that cannot be managed in theatre.

The Minister will be aware that the Secretary of State recently visited the Clyde submarine base at Faslane, where he talked to the unions about future procurement and work practice policies. He will also be aware that there is a combined trade union response document on securing work for the future. He knows that the work force are committed and loyal. Can he give us a progress report on the discussions between the Secretary of State and the work force and on the options regarding the combined trade union response on the future work practice at the Clyde submarine base?

We are well aware of the high quality work that has been carried out for us for many years at Faslane. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the unions held constructive meetings during his visit, and I can assure my hon. Friend that their submission is receiving the most careful consideration.

Can the Minister confirm that confidentiality is a very important component of effective procurement and that effective procurement could easily be compromised if, for example, listening devices were present in the Ministry of Defence? Can he confirm, as the Secretary of State implied yesterday, that some 30 such devices have been discovered? Can he say who is believed to have been responsible for their being placed in MOD buildings; estimate how long they have been in position; and tell the House whether it is true that they only came to light when the current refurbishment of the main building began? What additional precautions have been taken to ensure that future procurement is not prejudiced in any way?

I have always thought that one should not believe everything that one reads in the Sunday press, and this story is a very good example of that principle. I am very sorry to have to dampen some of the feverish speculation that has occurred, but the media reports of bugging devices being found in MOD buildings appear to have been derived largely from a misunderstanding involving an information security exhibition that was held for MOD staff in the main building in March. The exhibition, which was designed to improve staff security awareness, included a stand demonstrating the types of listening device that are readily available in high street shops and which could, potentially, be planted in MOD establishments to obtain information illegally. As I am sure all hon. Members are aware, the MOD protects itself against that threat by maintaining the capability to detect such devices should they be planted in our establishments at home or overseas. Clearly, I cannot comment in detail on the reports, but I can confirm that they are inaccurate and that no breach of security has occurred.

Does my hon. Friend still intend to procure 25 A400M heavy-lift military Airbus aircraft? Has he seen the speculation that Britain's A400Ms would only fly in conjunction with French and German A400Ms? Would he care to comment on that speculation?

I am quite sure that the speculation does not come from my right hon. Friend but, once again, it is an indication of the inaccuracy of reporting in the newspapers. The aircraft are not due to fly for another 10 years, but I can confirm that it is still our intention to order the fleet.

Will the Minister confirm that the only way to ensure value for money in the procurement of the type 45 destroyer programme is to be certain that more than one firm will be capable of building the ships? How can he defend the constant prevarication over whether the contract for at least one of the ships will be awarded to Vosper Thornycroft? The uncertainty over that matter is putting the jobs of my constituents who work for Vosper Thornycroft gravely at risk.

I am happy to confirm that it is still our intention to purchase one of the ships in the manner described. Our policy on the procurement of the type 45 has not changed.

When the first type 45 destroyer will enter service with the Royal Navy. [156929]

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence stated in the House on 11 July last year, we remain committed to an in-service date of 2007 for the first type 45 destroyer.

The Minister said, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), that the procurement strategy had not changed. In that case, why have the Government not rejected out of hand the unsolicited bid from BAE Systems and why do they not confirm that the original strategy—which would give Vosper Thornycroft on the south coast of England an equal share in the programme—still stands? Would it not be a very good way of celebrating St. George's day to place faith in a great English warship builder that has exported more than 300 warships in the past 10 years?

It is British yards that we are in favour of—not just English ones. I repeat what I said before: the policy has not changed. Of course, it is incumbent on us to give careful consideration to proposals that would ostensibly save a great deal of money, and we would be in dereliction of our duty if we did not do that. However, I can confirm that things are progressing well and that the initial stages of the programme are on time.

I thank my hon. Friend for that statement, but will he bring forward the orders to help the workers on the Clyde and to ensure that they receive a fair share of the work? Perhaps he could also remind Conservative Members that the ships are British, not English.

The programme is progressing as fast as it can. There have been no delays, information is being shared and the design is progressing. There is nothing more that I can say other than to add that the ships will be brought into service as quickly as possible.

Is it not quite clear that the Government's agenda on this matter is to try to pull the wool over the eyes of everyone concerned and to keep it there until after the election? The Government signed a contract with BAE Systems in December for the first three of class and that was supposed to provide for the second of class to be built by Vosper Thornycroft. No such contract has been awarded or has even been offered to Vosper Thornycroft and, as my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) just said, the Government have markedly not responded to the BAE Systems pre-emptive offer to build all 12 of class, which would be thoroughly inconsistent with everything that the Government have said about their strategy for this matter. Is it not quite clear that the Government have very bad news in store either for the workers of the Clyde or for the workers of the Southampton and Portsmouth areas and that they are simply determined to hold that news back until after the election?

I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but there is no truth in any of the allegations that he has made.

If he will make a statement on the role of the armed forces in tackling the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. [156930]

May I, first, take this opportunity to pay tribute to the men and women of the armed forces, to the staff of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the state veterinary service and other Government Departments and to the many volunteers who are working so hard to combat this disease?

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I also pay tribute to the armed forces for the work that they have been seen to have done on the ground. Given that the current outbreak is far tougher to deal with than the one that took place in 1967—that is due in part to the vastly increased number of sheep movements across the country—are there any further roles that the armed forces can play, particularly in the vexed question of the disposal of carcases?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, in particular for his observations on the comparison between the current outbreak and that in 1967. We estimate that as many as 2 million movements of sheep might have been made before this outbreak was detected, which has presented considerable difficulties in tracking down the disease and in dealing with it. I am also grateful for his comments on the role of the armed forces, which continue to provide support to MAFF. Indeed, I anticipate that a further deployment of logistic troops will be made to Devon to deal with the backlog of carcases in that county.

The Secretary of State may be aware that a case of foot and mouth confirmed yesterday arose because the infection was carried on a person's clothing. Will he give an assurance that every step is taken to ensure that no infection is carried by the clothing of members of the armed forces who deal with foot and mouth infected animals?

Certainly the armed forces that are involved in combating the disease ensure that their organisation, behaviour and individual activities do not contribute to the spread of foot and mouth. Indeed, we severely restricted training by the armed forces to ensure that they did not use land that might cause them to spread the disease.

I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said about extra armed service personnel coming to Devon to add to the excellent work that they are doing from the Ministry's offices in Exeter. However, is he aware that their job is being severely hampered by the desperate shortage of disposal sites in our county—[Interruption.] Yes, Devon sunshine. Had hon. Members come to Devon, they would have the same tan.

Extra logistical support is being deployed to Devon and part of its effort is urgently to address the problem of disposal sites. Work is under way on a mass burial site at Ashmore, but completion is some days away. It is crucial that we clear the backlog of carcases in Devon.

May I join the Secretary of State in congratulating the armed forces on their fantastic work? The way in which they have dealt with the problem since they were called in, and the focus that they have given to the disposal and to the need to speed up the processes, is something on which they should be congratulated.

"I don't think any of us doubt that we should have been called in earlier".

"but military assistance … should be accepted as early in the outbreak as possible … the earlier the military can be called in, the better."

I have studied carefully the account of the 1967 outbreak and have told the House that the circumstances then were different, not least because of the considerable number of animal movements across the country before this outbreak was detected. The hon. Gentleman is not right to suggest that it took a month before members of the armed forces were involved in dealing with the outbreak. They advised and assisted early on. He continues to pursue his argument because he confuses the presence of the armed forces behind the scenes, in which they gave advice on logistics, with their public participation, which became necessary when the scale of the outbreak became known. Since then, members of the armed forces have been involved in extensive work to combat the disease, which they will continue to carry out.

How much his Department has paid in compensation to ex-service men in each of the past five years. [156931]

How many compensation claims are outstanding against his Department. [156933]

The Ministry of Defence claims database does not distinguish between claims from former and serving members of the armed forces. The total amount of compensation paid to serving and former service personnel in each of the past five years was £20.5 million in 1996–97, £30.2 million in 1997–98, £37.4 million in 1998–99, £40.9 million in 1999–2000 and £47.9 million in 2000–01. The last figure is provisional and subject to final validation.

I am grateful for those figures, which prove that there is a culture of political correctness and a creeping tendency towards compensation claims in the armed forces, placing officers and those who serve under them in an extremely difficult position. Does the Minister agree that the legal liability under which the MOD will pay compensation has increased under this Government since we signed up to the European convention on human rights, and that it would increase yet again if we agreed to join an international criminal court?

What I can confirm is that the number of outstanding complaints has remained relatively constant over the past four years, which would suggest that what the hon. Lady asserts is not the case. The major change came about in 1987, when we accepted full liability for compensation issues. Clearly, court decisions on human rights will have some effect on numbers as rights are established or not. Overall, however, we expect the number of outstanding claims to decrease over time as the time scales for case management introduced by the 1999 civil justice reforms take effect.

In light of my hon. Friend's comments, will the Minister not acknowledge that the numbers are going up and that there is a prevailing climate of litigiousness and political correctness? It is essential that Ministers give no signal whatever that it is open season for compensation claims. Will he assure the House that risks will be properly and professionally managed, that claims will be handled tightly but not unfairly and that, wherever possible, losses will be mitigated through effective rehabilitation?

I have already said that the number of outstanding claims has remained constant over the past four years, so that deals with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. With regard to rights, I do not see anything wrong in serving members of the armed forces, male or female, having the same rights as any other citizen in this society. We manage our claims very carefully. Where there is clearly a liability to pay compensation, we do so, and where there is not, we defend our position vigorously.

May I ask about compensation claims arising from active service, particularly in relation to Sierra Leone? Ten members of 1 and 2 Para returned from Sierra Leone with malaria and had not been given tablets before they left, but the Ministry of Defence is giving compensation to only one of them. Why are the Government expecting the other nine to go through the courts to get their compensation? Will the 100-plus other troops who have come back from Sierra Leone with that debilitating disease be given compensation?

The answer to the second question is no. The answer to the other is that 17 claims were made against us. We feel that we clearly have liability in one case because the person was not treated until after four or five days in theatre. In all the other cases, treatment was started prior to deployment, despite what has been said to the contrary, and we will not be paying compensation.

When the Army will reach its full manning strength. [156932]

The Army remains firmly committed to achieving full manning by 2005. Although the current strength figures pose a very significant challenge to achieving that target, work is in hand across a wide range of initiatives.

That was a risible response. With the Army 8,000 under strength and the extremely worrying slippage in the target date for full manning highlighted by the Select Committee on Defence, which concluded that insufficient energy and imagination were being applied to the task, why can the Minister not see that what he needs to do is tell the House whether he agrees with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in rejecting full manning? If the Minister is not big enough to stand up to the Chief Secretary, why does he not make way for my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who certainly is?

I do not think that I should trade sizeist comments with the hon. Gentleman. Boomerangs are probably not the best choice of weapon that he could make in that respect.

Order. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) must let the Minister answer.

It is heroic to have achieved the current recruitment numbers in the face of the lowest unemployment for 25 years and the 1 million extra jobs owed to excellent management of the economy by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That does not mean that we are complacent. As I said, there are a number of initiatives under way, many of which are bearing fruit. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) should recognise that recruiting in the face of full employment is always more difficult than in the conditions of unemployment that the Conservative Government left us.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the range of measures introduced since 1997, including the service families taskforce and the recent announcement on service accommodation, will go a long way towards making life in the armed forces more attractive to recruits? Do they not clearly demonstrate the Government's commitment to overcoming the very difficult conditions for recruitment seen under the previous Government—

Oh, so it is our fault is it?

There is no doubt that we have taken major strides forward while Conservatives have merely thrown bricks and barracked.

I thank my hon. Friend for that. He is right, not so much about recruitment, although such measures have an impact in that respect, as about retention of experienced and trained members of the forces.

Is the Minister aware that some infantry regiments are spending up to £40,000 of privately raised money on their recruitment? Should not that be the Government's responsibility and not theirs?

We are spending considerable sums on recruitment. Individual regiments rightly and proudly undertake a lot of their own recruitment work, as they want to ensure that their personnel are as well recruited as possible. That is a traditional activity. We need to read across from the successes of some regiments in order to learn the lessons and to spread them to other regiments. A significant amount of work is being done to spread best practice in that regard.

Neither the Minister nor my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) need be sensitive about size. I am sure that we could arrange for the signing of a compact against sizeism in the forthcoming election. The problem with his figures is that they do not add up. Nobody doubts the success and determination of the adjutant-general's department in respect of recruitment and retention; indeed, they are beyond doubt. The problem is not that the Ministry of Defence lacks commitment, but that the Treasury lacks it. We have heard that there is a shortfall of 8,000 troops, and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that it would cost £1.3 billion pounds to fill it. At the same time, however, the defence budget continues to fall as a percentage of gross domestic product. That is the problem. Will the Minister commit himself, and say that there will be no further reductions in county regiments, old regiments afoot, the Lancers or the Royal Tank Regiment? Will there be no further cuts?

The hon. Gentleman is weightier than his arguments. The situation is limited by the ability to recruit. We have had success in that respect, although there have been some retention difficulties. The measures that I outlined just now, and which we have announced previously, have improved matters, but circumstances are extremely difficult, as high employment—we have the lowest unemployment for 25 years—is a major challenge to recruiting. Our people are rising to that challenge, however, and all who meet the standard are being recruited into the armed forces. That is welcome and that effort is being properly funded. If he goes out into the streets of Salisbury to urge more youngsters to join the armed forces, as I hope that he will, they will be recruited and properly funded.

By how many the Territorial Army is under strength; and if he will make a statement. [156934]

The latest available official figures show that the Territorial Army is under strength by 520 personnel.

May I inform the Minister that, like many other hon. Members, I visited my excellent local TA signals unit in Eastbourne during the recent TA open day? Does he agree that the morale of the extremely committed men and women in the TA is potentially undermined by the fact that the Government have cut the TA during the current Parliament, but are requiring ever greater service from serving TA members, to a level that has never been required in the past?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman enjoyed visiting his local TA unit. I enjoyed a similar visit a couple of weeks ago. The current TA bears little relation to that of 10 years ago. It is a far leaner organisation and is far better fitted to the tasks that we want it to perform than it was when it had the rather inappropriate structure which we were bequeathed. I am confident that the organisation will continue to go from strength to strength, especially as we have just started a recruitment campaign to encourage people to join it.

When I met the commanding officer of the Royal Monmouthshire Engineers last week, he did not tell me that his regiment was under strength. However, he informed me that certain members of the regiment had volunteered individually to help in dealing with the foot and mouth crisis, and that the local information centre for the crisis, which was set up by the Welsh Assembly, had been housed at the regimental headquarters in Monmouth. Will my hon. Friend join me in commending the work of the regiment in supporting our farmers at this time?

Yes, I certainly shall. We are grateful for the role that reservists play in joining up with units for a period of service, especially with regard to the work that they are doing on foot and mouth. Currently, almost 500 volunteer and regular reservists are called out on operational duties. I can only say how much we appreciate their efforts on our behalf.

What recent discussions he has had with his French and German counterparts on the proposed European rapid reaction force. [156935]

If he will make a statement on the European security and defence policy. [156936]

I regularly meet my French and German counterparts to discuss a range of defence matters. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary attended the European Union Defence Ministers' informal meeting in Brussels on 6 April. European security and defence policy was discussed on that occasion.

Did the Under-Secretary tell the Secretary of State that it was revealed at the meeting in Brussels that the German Government, who have a deficit of £1 billion in their defence budget, would be unable to fulfil their commitment to provide 18,000 troops to the European defence force? Would the Secretary of State like to comment on the remarks of the French Chief of General Staff who said that NATO and the European defence force would be entirely separate? The Secretary of State has denied that; nevertheless, it is the case. Furthermore, the American Secretary of State—

Order. I think that the Secretary of State has got the drift.

If the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) stands in any forthcoming elections to the Bundestag, he will be able to ask the German Defence Minister those questions. However, I have already dealt with the other matter fully. The hon. Gentleman knows that we are committed to improving European military capabilities.

The Secretary of State says that he has dealt with the question fully. What does he say to General Gustav Hagglund, who is in charge of the rapid reaction force, and who claimed that we were considering not a subsidiary of NATO but an independent body? What about the comments at the weekend of a German defence spokesman, who said that the proposed European air transport command would "operate independently from NATO"? Can the Secretary of State spin his way out of that?

Another Member of Parliament seems anxious to join the Bundestag. As to the highly speculative accounts in certain newspapers, which are fuelled by the shadow Secretary of State, I stress that members of the RAF will remain firmly under British control.

On the question of deployment, does my right hon. Friend agree that any premature referendum in Montenegro could destabilise the whole region? If conflict spilled into Montenegro, who would be deployed as peacekeepers: NATO or the rapid reaction force?

Montenegro's relations with the former republic of Yugoslavia are a matter for Montenegro, not the British Secretary of State for Defence. Arrangements for KFOR to be deployed in Kosovo have already been made. They will continue unless and until its presence is no longer required.

While I have no present plans to stand for election to the United States Congress, may I ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has noted that a series of influential, experienced and pro-British American statesmen have said that the European rapid reaction force poses a serious threat to the future of NATO and to the American commitment to the defence of Europe?

The hon. Gentleman would have to hold US citizenship for 20 years before he could stand for Congress. I am sure that he has time for that. If he were elected, he would find a range of opinions there, as in any democratic country. There are some who are critical of improvements in European capabilities; however, in my experience, there are more who support the efforts of European nations to be more responsible for their security and thus less dependent on the United States taxpayer.

When listening to the Secretary of State, I am led to wonder whether he has not already sought election to the Bundestag. We never get an answer to a straight question. When the remarks of any Government are quoted, the Secretary of State simply says, "Well, that's their opinion". They are also the opinions to which he signed up.

The hon. Gentleman's kneejerk prejudices on European questions are well known. I have already made it clear in relation to those reports that the RAF and its equipment will remain firmly under British control. That is an answer to his question, and if it is the answer that he was seeking, perhaps he will accept it. The proposals that have been made over a long period for improving the co-ordination of European forces—not simply of air forces but of navies and of armed forces on the ground—have been well known to anyone who has followed this debate closely. I assume, given the hon. Gentleman's objections to this kind of co-operation, that if he had been Defence Secretary in either 1914 or 1939, he would have refused to allow British forces to co-operate alongside their then European allies.

The Secretary of State is again attempting to use smooth words with nothing behind them. The reality is that he knows about this matter only too well. His spokesman told the newspapers yesterday that he was unaware of any such proposals, but the right hon. Gentleman knows very well that Rudolf Scharping has been proposing this for some time: right back into 1999, at which time the right hon. Gentleman was fully aware of it.

I mentioned 1914 and 1939. Perhaps I should bring the hon. Gentleman more up to date. There was co-ordination and co-operation among air forces in the bombing campaign over Serbia, which was conducted effectively by a combined allied operation. That has been the history of aerial warfare throughout the past century. I am very surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not recognise that it is in the interests of all European armed forces to be able to work more effectively together, and that he does not accept that—I say this for the third time today—the RAF, its personnel and its equipment will remain under British control.

How many civilian jobs in the north-east of England he has (a) created and (b) safeguarded by the awarding of defence contracts since the completion of the defence review. [156938]

Approximately 350,000 jobs are dependent on defence expenditure and equipment exports. More than 60,000 new contracts are placed each year and the Ministry of Defence does not record the number of jobs created or safeguarded as a result of each individual procurement decision. As my hon. Friend will know, in March of this year the Ministry of Defence confirmed a contract worth £250 million with Vickers Defence Systems for the supply of 66 specialist Challenger-based engineer tanks. That will help to sustain all 500 jobs at its Newcastle plant and up to another 1,000 jobs among UK sub-contractors.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his efforts. I also congratulate the Minister for Defence Procurement on her unfailing helpfulness and courtesy to north-east Members of Parliament when they pursue these issues. However, my hon. Friend will be aware of the very difficult situation facing shipbuilding workers in the north-east, which is part of the fallout resulting from the difficulties of the Cammell Laird group. Is he also aware that, whereas one in 10 members of the military forces in the United Kingdom is recruited from the north-east, only one in 200 of civilian MOD employees is located there? Is my hon. Friend giving his attention to these matters, and will he offer any prospects for assistance?

I am well aware that areas such as the north-west and north-east, which supply the largest percentage of our recruits in England, suffer when it comes to the deployment of Ministry of Defence jobs. It is our policy where possible to devolve jobs away from the south-east to other regions, and I assure my hon. Friend that I will do all that I can to ensure that that happens.

What the Minister did not say about Cammell Laird is that the company had hoped for a considerable amount of work in connection with ro-ro ferries—work that the Government have placed in Germany. Is that not a betrayal of hundreds of workers in the north-west and north-east of England?

As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the contract for the ro-ro ferries encompasses their management and service over their lifetime, as well as their construction, which represents a very small part of the total value of the contract. It has been let to Weir, the British company that will control it.

If he will make a statement on the contributions of British forces to security and training in Sierra Leone. [156939]

If he will make a statement on the armed forces' deployment in Sierra Leone. [156944]

British troops are in Sierra Leone to assist the democratically elected Government to establish effective and accountable armed forces. We have between 550 and 600 troops on the ground in Sierra Leone at any time. They constitute the United Kingdom's contribution to the international military advisory and training team, soldiers providing the short-term training teams, and a brigade headquarters. The short-term training team commitment has recently been taken on by 2 Battalion The Light Infantry, which succeeds 2 Battalion The Royal Gurkha Rifles. As I announced in January, we will continue to provide the training teams at least until September this year.

Will my hon. Friend send a message of support from the House to our soldiers and other personnel, whom I have seen doing an excellent job in Sierra Leone?

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments about the excellent job being done. It is a great advantage that a number of Members from all parts of the House have been able to visit Sierra Leone, and to see that work being undertaken. It has also given considerable encouragement to the troops.

How many United Kingdom forces personnel, including our special forces—police, security and intelligence services—have been killed during their deployment in Sierra Leone, or as a consequence of that deployment?

According to my recollection, one member of the Paratroop Regiment was killed in an extremely successful operation to rescue some of our forces—an operation that was widely remarked on not just in the House, but across the world.

The Minister said that the short-term training commitment would last until at least September this year. When does he expect the Sierra Leone Government to be able to achieve normality in that country, which I presume means the defeat of the RUF? Will he confirm that it is only then that our troops will be able to come home?

Our forces are there primarily in the training role. Obviously, it will be a matter of assessing the capability of the Sierra Leonean Army and, as the hon. Gentleman rightly identifies, success on the ground. It is a little difficult to predict a time scale on that.

What representations he has received on his amendments to defence policy priorities since the strategic defence review; and if he will make a statement. [156942]

There have been no fundamental changes in the Government's defence policy priorities since the strategic defence review was published in July 1998. However, the Government recognise the need to adapt to a changing world. That is why, for example, we recently updated our strategic analysis and published the results in two publications: "Defence Policy 2001" and "The Future Strategic Context for Defence."

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Given its significant potential contribution, what steps have the Government taken to develop their policy of multinational defence co-operation? In particular, does my right hon. Friend see any further scope for the development of co-operation between the Royal Navy and the navies of allied countries?

Clearly, there is strong potential for further effective co-operation between the Royal Navy and the navies of other countries. We could, for example, build on the success of the French ship attachments to the United Kingdom and Royal Navy involvement in French exercises—building on work set out by the last Conservative Secretary of State for Defence. We can improve the interoperability of our Navy further through joint exercises. Opportunities are provided by membership of the five powers defence arrangement for regular joint exercises and training with Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia and Singapore. We are also seeking to develop closer co-operation on amphibious issues with France, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that one of the SDR priorities was to recruit all three services up to strength and to provide 3,000 extra men for the Army? Will he further confirm that every category of regular personnel except naval officers lost numbers during the previous fiscal year; that premature voluntary release is at a 10-year high; that medical downgrading is at almost its historic peacetime high; that the addresses of over a third of the regular reserve have been lost; that officer recruiting for the Territorial Army has collapsed; and that the royal naval reserve is also losing numbers fast? It is time that the Secretary of State thought again a little about his personnel policy options.

What I can confirm is that the Government remain committed to the force levels set out in the strategic defence review, but that, in a strong economy, we recognise that retention is an issue with which we have to deal. We are putting considerable administrative effort into improving retention levels. Notwithstanding the strong economy, recruitment is proceeding satisfactorily and many young people see the armed forces as an attractive way of life, particularly given the activities in which the armed forces are currently engaged. There is a matching up between the advertisements and the reality of life in service.

What recent assessment he has made of the fighting capabilities of female soldiers. [156946]

A review of the employment of women in the armed forces is currently in progress. I expect to receive advice on its conclusions later this year.

What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that the criteria against which female soldiers will be measured are not watered down, to the detriment of our operational capabilities?

The review that is being conducted is extremely thorough. It comprises a wide-ranging review of scientific literature. There is an attitude survey, a field trial looking at team dynamics and assessments from each of the three services, but I emphasise that operational effectiveness will be the deciding question. We will not allow any decision to be taken that in any way compromises the operational effectiveness, the combat effectiveness, of our armed forces.

If he will make a statement on Army manpower. [156947]

As at 1 March 2001, whole Army strength stood at 100,199, a shortfall against the currently assessed post-strategic defence review requirement of around 8,000. The Army remains firmly committed to achieving full manning by 2005 and work is in hand across a very wide range of initiatives.

The Secretary of State said a few moments ago that recruitment to the Army was progressing satisfactorily. Does the Minister understand that the real problem is retention within the Army? Is not the failure of this Government to make the Army and the other services an attractive career the real reason why the Defence Committee says that it will be 2008 before the target is reached?

It is rather unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman prepared his question before hearing the earlier replies, which made it clear that retention had improved considerably, not least because of the considerable measures that we have undertaken to improve the quality of service life. Much of that was needed to address the significant problems that had built up in the 18 years of Conservative Government, not least the question of accommodation. Equally, we must recognise that recruitment and retention are taking place against a background of a strong economy, in which unemployment is at its lowest level for 25 years, there are 1 million extra jobs and a considerable number of youngsters are going into tertiary education. The recruitment teams for the Army and other services are performing a magnificent job in bringing youngsters into the armed forces, but they are not complacent, and additional work is being undertaken to improve recruitment at all levels. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, along with his colleagues, will be going to local schools to urge youngsters seriously to consider the armed forces as a good career prospect.

What discussions he has had with the US Administration about threats posed to western security by Russia. [156948]

I have had discussions with the US Administration on a wide range of defence items, including threats to western security. The 1999 NATO strategic concept made clear that Russia was not currently regarded as a threat and that

"a strong, stable and enduring partnership between NATO and Russia is essential to achieve lasting stability in the Euro-Atlantic area".

Does the Secretary of State share the increasingly sceptical and hostile attitude of the Bush Administration to Russia on proliferation, espionage and other matters, or does he feel that there is an opportunity to strengthen our relations with Russia under the common European Union framework?

I have made it clear that, under the framework of NATO, we support NATO's 1999 conclusion that efforts should be made to secure a strong, stable and enduring partnership between NATO and Russia.

What representations he has received concerning the European security and defence policy. [156955]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Members for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) and for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson).

I am delighted that the Secretary of State has referred me to his earlier answers, because that enables me to point out how inadequate they were. Is it not a fact that senior American politicians, the Finnish general in charge of the European rapid reaction force and the French Chief of the Defence Staff—who has not, incidentally, modified or retracted anything he said, despite the earlier predictions by the Secretary of State—have made it perfectly clear that the ERRF is to operate outside, not inside, the NATO structure? Will he now stop his waffle about the need to co-operate with our European allies—which we all support, within NATO—and set our doubts at rest? Is not what is being proposed the building of something outside NATO which will undermine NATO—something of which our American allies are becoming increasingly aware?

We have now had experience of two American Administrations, and both have made it clear that they support efforts by European nations to improve their military capabilities because by doing so they contribute to the success of NATO. We have made it clear that we regard the development of any improved European capabilities as a contribution to NATO.

On a point of order, Sir Alan. It is appropriate to draw to your attention to the fact that we are witnessing today a historic breach of the conventions of the House, in that the timetable motion limits the flexibility of the Opposition in today's debate. May I quote briefly from "Parliament: Functions, Practice and Procedures" by J. A. Griffith, emeritus professor of public law, Michael Ryle, a former Clerk of Committees in the House of Commons, and Mr. Wheeler-Booth, Clerk Assistant in the House of Lords? It says, on page 253:

"after second reading, which provides an opportunity for a broad debate on the Government's tax proposals against the background of the national economy, the committee stage of the bill is now divided between a committee of the whole House and a standing committee. The motion to commit certain clauses to a committee of the whole House (and sometimes new clauses on specified matters) is moved by the Government, but the choice of which matters should be considered in this way is, in practice, largely left to the Opposition."

The hon. Gentleman will understand that this is not a matter on which the Chair can rule, as it is determined by other means. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to make his point, but it now seems to be a matter of his approaching the Chairman of the Procedure Committee if he would like the matter to be examined further.

Further to that point of order, Sir Alan. I wish to associate the Liberal Democrats with the request made by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway). Is it possible for you to consult the Government Whips to see whether they would be prepared to reconsider their position, given the strong feeling throughout the Opposition parties that there should be a chance for other issues to be debated during the Committee Of the whole House?

I am always ready to try to use my beneficial influence wherever possible in the House, but what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting is outwith what I am permitted to do, especially in the absence of a Business Sub-Committee, for which no provision was made on this occasion.

I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 12, line 25, at end insert—

'(2A) Prior to the commencement date the Treasury shall publish a scheme of rebates to those persons charged with the levy proportionate to the environmental protection measures employed by that person in the process of commercial exploitation of aggregate, and such a scheme shall have effect on the commencement date.'.

The hon. Gentleman said that the issue had been much discussed with the industry, but that suggests that the Government listened to what was said. The proposals have not been altered in any way, and my experience of being involved in at least one discussion suggests that the Government have a closed mind on them.

The hon. Gentleman pre-empts what I was about to say. Although much discussion has taken place, and the industry—to its credit—has gone a long way towards meeting some of the Government's objectives, its proposals have effectively been rejected and a statutory levy will be applied, irrespective of whether it will do the job that the Government, local communities and, for that matter, the industry, recognise needs to be done. We need to improve local environmental standards and procedures to achieve the best possible result, and that is the issue at the heart of the amendment.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not continue to use the word "environment" when talking about this tax. He must realise that the tax will not affect the environmental position and that a regulatory framework already exists. This is a money-raising tax, and has nothing to do with the environment.

I contend that it is possible to inject into the levy a little element of environmental protection, which it does not possess at the moment. The hon. Gentleman chides me for not being sufficiently aggressive towards Ministers early in my speech, but I wish to set out the proposals as I see them, and then to mention one way of improving them.

The hon. Gentleman should get it right; I am aggressive not towards my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench, but towards the tax, which is wrong and ill conceived.

Clearly the hon. Gentleman is against the sin, but not the sinner. In my observations I will encompass both.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's eminently reasonable concern that the details of the rebate scheme should be published before the commencement date of the levy, but why will he not bestir himself one little bit further and make the reasonable demand that the Government publish those details before the passage of the Bill?

I am interested not in the passage of the Bill but in the start of this iniquitous tax. I have already voted against it in the Budget debate, so my position is absolutely clear. I am trying to get the Government out of the hole that they have dug—which is perhaps the appropriate analogy in this context. They are making exactly the same mistake as their predecessors made with the landfill tax. The way in which the tax is presented reeks of environmental rectitude, but it does absolutely nothing for the environment and hits the wrong targets.

They will become subject to landfill tax.

Indeed, they could be doubly taxed if they were moved off the quarry.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there are two ways of solving that problem, which is obviously acute if we want to stop 10,000 or so jobs being exported unnecessarily? The Government could adopt either the very wide exemption scheme proposed in his amendment, or our proposal in amendment No. 26, which redefines aggregates in such a way as to eliminate pre-cast concrete from the levy.

The hon. Gentleman is right. I know that I would be out of order were I to refer directly to the amendment to which he alludes. However, there are undoubtedly two ways of dealing with the problem. It is a very big issue in terms of potential employment and revenue loss. The estimated cost to the pre-cast concrete industry is £40 million; the levy will represent a 25 per cent. take on its profits. That is an unsustainable process of taxation, and it will simply drive jobs out of the country. There might be an argument for that if the levy achieved the environmental effects claimed by the Government, but it will not. It will have quite the reverse effect: it will be of disbenefit in environmental terms.

I emphasise my hon. Friend's point about the disbenefit in environmental terms. Transporting such products will clearly be environmentally damaging to the communities and the environment through which they pass.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He recognises the problem in his constituency, which has both aggregate producers and a thriving port. It is obvious that we must find other areas of supply.

Does not the most severe environmental damage in many areas result from the transport of the aggregates rather than the digging? Does that not strengthen even further the point made by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith)?

The hon. Gentleman, too, is absolutely right. Indeed, his point is supported by the research that the Government themselves commissioned into the environmental disbenefits of the quarrying industry. The research found that the main problem was quarry lorries going past people's doors and windows along roads that were never built to accommodate them. That is the aspect of quarrying that people find most worrying—much more so than the occasional distant thud of an explosion that everyone expects anyway, or even the holes in the ground, which are often masked. If the hon. Gentleman came to the Torr works, which is one of the biggest quarries in the country, he would not know it was there until he arrived at the gates, because a great deal of landscaping has been done to ensure that it is not evident. He would, however, be aware of the heavy transport passing through all our villages—not so much from Torr, which has provided a railhead, but certainly from many other quarries. That has a substantial effect on local communities.

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about transport, but is he aware that the Government already provide schemes whereby grants can be given to quarry companies to improve rail access, as has happened with great success in some constituencies, including my own?

I have just said that the Torr works has a railhead, as does the Hanson quarry at Whatley. Those are very welcome, but the tax could, if designed properly, encourage more companies to have one. In its present form, with no rebate scheme, the levy will discourage companies from taking steps to improve the local environment. There is no competitive benefit for them; indeed, there is no benefit beyond public-spiritedness and a good relationship with their local communities. I fear that the Bill will result in enormous environmental disbenefit in communities such as mine.

Does my hon. Friend agree that many constituencies, including mine, have virtually no railways, but several quarries and utterly unsuitable roads?

My hon. Friend is right. It was ever thus, I fear; when I was leader of Somerset county council, the minutes of the council's first meetings were kept in my office, and when I read the minutes of the very first, I found a discussion of the difficulties caused by quarry lorries in the Mendips and their effect on local roads. That meeting was held in 1889, so the issue is of very long standing.

Is it not likely that the condition of the roads will be even worse once the tax is imposed, as local authorities, whose budgets will be drained by the tax, will have even less to spend on them?

It is an interesting by-product of the levy that the cost will fall heavily on local authorities, which will be trying to repair the infrastructure damaged by heavy transport.

That objective is the only reason for suggesting it.

I agree absolutely.

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Will he elaborate a little on the type of environmental protection measures that he wants to be included in his rebate scheme? In particular, he referred to the environmental damage done to local communities by the noise and dust from the lorries that carry the aggregates. Does he want his scheme to include measures to tackle that problem, or should it be dealt with by separate regulations?

My hon. Friend is right to suggest that some things are susceptible to regulation, but having wrestled with the problem for more years than I care to remember, I can tell him that it is very difficult to do by regulation all that is required. An incentive is needed for the companies to take the measures that they know they should implement if they can, because it is sometimes commercially impossible for them to do so. There is an obvious difference in attitude between the companies that take their responsibilities seriously—very often, those are the bigger companies—and those that do not. There is no "big is bad and small is good" argument here; it is often the other way around in this context.

May I remind the Committee that there is a limited amount of time to debate such matters, and it would be helpful if hon. Members had regard to the fact that other colleagues wish to contribute? This is not a stand part debate, and although it has ranged reasonably widely until now, it cannot be expanded into a stand part debate. Hon. Members who want to contribute to a stand part debate should bear that fact in mind in making contributions on the amendment.

I have a little knowledge not of the taxation system, but of aggregates. I support all the Government's efforts in raising and spending taxes in a very positive way. My constituents and many poorer areas of the country have certainly benefited enormously as a result of the Government's financial and economic policies.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, I will not because of the shortage of time.

The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) said that the tax was a tax on jobs, but it is more than that: it is a tax on the cost of a house because a considerable amount of aggregates goes into building a home. Although I hope that we will have time to debate amendment No. 24, which relates to Northern Ireland, I shall concentrate on amendment No. 4, which refers to

"rebates to those persons charged with the levy".

"These costs will be significantly higher for the transportation of concrete blocks, as these have to be handled by a specific type of truck. Taking the levy rate of £1.60 per tonne and even assuming transport costs are no greater than 10 pence per tonne mile, it would appear uneconomical to transport the processed aggregate more than … 16 miles."

Further to the point that I put to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) earlier, does the hon. Gentleman agree that his fear of an especially adverse impact of the tax on the people of Northern Ireland serves further to underline the necessity of publishing the details of any rebate scheme not merely before the commencement date of the tax, when it will too late to debate them, but before the passage of the Bill itself?

The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct, and I hoped that the Government, who place so much stress on transparency, would be more than willing to produce all the facts and figures and the details of the research that has been carried out. They have lamentably failed to do so up to now. Those of us who have talked to the industry in Northern Ireland take the view that much, if not all, of the regional aggregates industry will suffer grievously as a consequence of the tax.

A few weeks ago, The Mail on Sunday described me as sycophantic. Obviously, it had never heard me talking about aggregates tax. I am co-chairman of the parliamentary minerals group and a member of the GMB, which is the largest trade union in the quarrying industry. The Quarry Products Association was launched in my constituency in 1997. Quarrying is the largest single part of the manufacturing industry in High Peak, which has nine major quarries and many smaller ones. I lay some claim to the second runway at Manchester airport, all 2 million tonnes of which used to be located in my constituency, but were transported by rail to the site.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether he will vote against the clause?

I shall say exactly which way I shall vote, but the hon. Gentleman will have to wait for that moment to arrive. [Interruption.] I shall not change my position between now and a few minutes' time.