For what reason British civilians interned in the far east during the second world war and accepted as British at the time of internment have not been granted compensation. [15074]

For what reasons he changed the criteria for eligibility for compensation for civilians interned by the Japanese in the second world war from being British and holding British passports at the time; and how many applicants have been excluded on the basis of the subsequent changes. [15083]

The ex-gratia payment scheme for former far east prisoners, which I announced in the House on 7 November last year, covered various British groups, including civilians who were interned by the Japanese. The eligibility criterion for civilian claimants under the scheme is that they were British subjects whom the Japanese interned, and who were born in the United Kingdom or had a parent or grandparent born in this country. That criterion was clarified earlier this year, but there has been no change in the intended scope of the scheme. Holding a British passport, either then or now, was never a criterion for eligibility under the scheme.

I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. May I draw his attention to the case of my constituent, Dr. Mark Erooga? Dr. Erooga was naturalised in 1940, swore allegiance to the sovereign, served in the Hong Kong defence reserve and was interned in 1941 when working at Kowloon hospital. After the war he worked in the national health service from its inception until his retirement. Does my hon. Friend agree that Dr. Erooga deserves to be compensated like other internees?

Clearly, I cannot agree with my hon. Friend. However, if he sends me details of his constituent's case, I shall be happy to look at them and to write back to him on the subject.

Although it is good that the British Government have accepted what was the moral responsibility of the Japanese Government, in paying compensation to those people, does my hon. Friend accept that, at the time, it was said that the compensation would be paid to

"surviving British civilians who were interned by the Japanese in the Far East during the Second World War"?

Given the number of people who have been paid, I consider that the debt of honour has indeed been discharged. May I point out to my hon. Friend that it would have been easy for us just to have accepted the criteria that were used in the 1950s to determine who was to be awarded compensation as a result of moneys paid by the Japanese? Had that been the case, many fewer civilians would have been included than have been under this scheme. To allow an association going back to grandparents, which even in the case of the youngest claimant takes their claim back to the 19th century, is a fair recognition by the Government of whether people are entitled to be compensated under the scheme.

The Minister will know of at least two of my constituents who have been refused claims for ex gratia payments: Mrs. Drina Leeson, who was interned as a child in Singapore where her father died, but who lost her documents while fleeing from the Japanese; and Mrs. Doris Pyett, separated from her parents, interned at the age of seven in Singapore and whose stepmother received compensation, even though she did not marry Mrs. Pyett's father until 1947, yet Mrs. Pyett did not receive compensation. Why are they and hundreds of others British enough to have been imprisoned by the Japanese as enemies of the emperor, but not enough to be acknowledged by the British Government? Is not the most hurtful consequence that people who have lived all their lives as British are suddenly, in their twilight years, told that they are not British?

They are not, of course, being told that they are not British: they are being told that they are not eligible for this payment, which is a quite different matter.

Could I ask the hon. Gentleman, who is a reasonable sort of chap, if he will pause for a minute and realise that, by taking that obdurate line, he is tarnishing a record for magnanimity that he established when he announced the scheme? Will he take out his history book and read what Lord Palmerston said at the time of the Don Pacifico incident, and make his abiding watchword, "Civis Britannicus sum"?

I would be more inclined to accept that lesson—indeed, I have already seen the quote in question—from an Opposition Member if those on the Opposition Benches had not been quite so obdurate themselves over many years in refusing to make any kind of payment whatever. It is a bit thick for Opposition Members, who supported previous Governments, to complain now about a scheme which is, quite frankly, exceptionally generous. I am sorry that the scheme cannot cover all those who consider themselves eligible for it, but we had to draw the line somewhere, and I stand by that decision.

May I remind my hon. Friend of the case, about which I have written to him, of Mr. Isaac Abraham, who was a British subject interned by the Japanese at the age of nine? He came to the United Kingdom in 1949 and worked for 30 years as a teacher in Britain. He was arrested by the Japanese, as were the rest of his family and other constituents of mine, because the British consul gave their details to the Japanese so that they knew whom to round up. He feels extremely cheated by this retrospective rewriting of nationality laws. In fact, if his family had collaborated with the Japanese, they would have been guilty of treason; they feel very hard done by. Bearing in mind the number of representations from both sides of the House today, I ask my hon. Friend to take another look at this very serious issue, especially as, so far, about one in three of the potential claimants have been excluded.

As I have already said, if a parent or any grandparent had been born in this country, they would be eligible. We have rightly widened the criteria from those that were used in the 1950s, and it would not be proper to go any further than that.

Why does this Minister always end up having to defend the indefensible? Is not it a fact that if those people were British enough to suffer by being interned, they are British enough to be compensated for being interned?

No, I regret that that is not the case. I have allowed a sufficient line of consanguinity to take as many people as possible into the net. Many people may have been classified as British who will not qualify for the payments. As I have said, a line had to be drawn somewhere, and it was drawn in the correct place.

Even if the Minister is resolute in not taking criticism from Opposition Members, I hope that he will be more sympathetic to the pleas from Labour Members. Will he confirm that, in his statement of 7 November last year, he offered no qualification in the definition of "British" that he described then? In answer to a parliamentary question that I asked, he confirmed that

"to be eligible for the ex-gratia payment civilian claimants must have been British at the time of internment."—[Official Report, 31 October 2001: Vol. 373, c. 748W.]

Well, I am afraid that I shall be just as obdurate to my hon. Friends as I have been to Opposition Members. I consider that the scheme's boundaries have been set fairly, and I do not intend to change them.

If he will make a statement on the role of the Royal Navy in the recent actions in Afghanistan. [15075]

The Royal Navy has been involved from the outset, alongside United States forces. Royal Navy submarines fired a small number of Tomahawk land attack missiles on 7 and 13 October. An amphibious task group—led by the aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious, converted for helicopter operations—has remained in the region since the end of Exercise Saif Sareea 2, with a Tomahawk missile-armed submarine presence. United Kingdom forces, including elements of 40 Commando Royal Marines, embarked with the task group, have also been deployed at the military airfield at Bagram, some 30 miles outside Kabul.

I welcome that reply. The Secretary of State will recall that, together with two Labour Members, I served on HMS Cumberland last year as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I wish to pay tribute to the members of the dark blues—the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines. He will appreciate, however, that to be kept almost permanently on continuous 48-hour readiness and a state of high alert is a very tall order. Is he able to tell the House why our forces are still on a state of alertness, whereas the United States marines have gone into action?

I have just recognised the importance of maintaining a significant degree of flexibility, but I accept the hon. Lady's point that it is important that we maintain the right level of preparedness according to the needs of our joint rapid reaction force. Even in its normal state of preparedness, that force maintains a level of readiness that very few countries can match. As she said, it is important that we recognise that it is not right to keep elements at a higher state of readiness than we can justify in the light of particular circumstances. We will continue to review those circumstances and take appropriate decisions accordingly.

I am sure that the Secretary of State will join me in congratulating the work force at HMS Faslane in my constituency who have contributed to the Royal Navy's efforts.

The situation in Kunduz remains confused, although the latest reports indicate that the city has finally fallen. We obviously want the minimum level of bloodshed and urge the Northern Alliance to abide by international conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war. However, the foreigners in Kunduz should not he allowed to escape simply to mount terrorist attacks elsewhere. That message has been received loud and clear, and certainly will be acted on.

The Secretary of State has mentioned the Royal Marines at Bagram, so will he tell us what measures have been put in place to secure the safety and force protection of British forces? For example, does he intend to increase the marine force at Bagram? Can he tell us exactly what the mission of the Royal Marines based there is? Are they likely to be used in support of US marine operations?

Certainly, we keep under constant review the question of force protection for members of Her Majesty's armed forces at Bagram. That is very high on Ministers' agendas and something that we keep under constant review.

Further to my right hon. Friend's reply and in view of what took place on 11 September, has he had an opportunity to make an assessment of the rapid reaction capability of some of our NATO allies and of our ability to respond in future to acts of mass terrorism?

There are clearly a range of capabilities within NATO forces. For example, forces in the United Kingdom and, for that matter, the United States are available at very low levels of notice and are in high states of readiness. This country has benefited from the results of the strategic defence review, because many of the decisions required on notice and readiness were taken as part of the SDR and as part of the process that continues to ensure that we have rapidly deployable forces. It is something that we want other countries that do not necessarily have that level of readiness to be able to emulate.

I am sure that the whole House will wish to extend sympathy, if it is needed, to any British soldiers who have been injured. We await further news on that with trepidation.

"there has been no situation in which we have put British troops into the ground civil war"?

I can confirm that British forces are on the ground in Afghanistan, working alongside United States forces, and I will explain a little more about that in due course.

We appreciate that the situation remains fluid and the Secretary of State needs to maintain flexibility, but is he able to clarify plans for the contingent of Royal Marines at Bagram? There are reports that he is receiving advice that he must either reinforce that contingent or withdraw it. I note that 2 Para are remaining in readiness. Which is it to be?

I encourage the hon. Gentleman not to believe the kinds of reports that appear in the newspapers, which seem to be the source of his information. Those reports are not true. That contingent of Royal Marines will remain there while they have a useful a job to do, which I set out in response to an earlier question, and while they are safe to do it. That is the position today.

I am grateful for the Secretary of State's clarification. There is now every confidence that Afghanistan's role as a sponsor for international terrorism will be successfully concluded. There are, however, other threats from other organisations that have grievances, the motivation, the money, the means and the capability to pursue international terrorism. The Government set out their wider objectives, which are:

"to do everything possible to eliminate the threat posed by international terrorism … to deter states from supporting, harbouring or acting complicitly with international terrorist groups".

The Government have worked closely with the United States and other members of the coalition since 11 September. That is why, as the hon. Gentleman's question implies, it is important not solely to concentrate on the military response, but to recognise that a range of action has been taken against international terrorism, including financial measures, measures to ensure that terrorists cannot take advantage of our rules to allow free movement across international boundaries and measures to track down individuals in particular and bring them to justice if appropriate. A range of measures has been taken across the international coalition since 11 September. Obviously our military response has concentrated on Afghanistan. As I said previously, that sends a clear message to any other country that might be tempted to support or condone terrorism about the action that is likely to result unless they back off.

What guidelines have been given to our forces to try to find the hordes of opium that are said to be in the possession of both the Taliban and the Northern Alliance? Is due account taken of the fact that the farmers will be deciding whether to sow crops of poppy, because it would be highly desirable to give them an incentive to sow something else?

British forces are not there to track down hordes of opium, but they are there to destroy support for terrorism and the al-Qaeda organisation, which has extensive involvement in drug smuggling. There is little doubt that in tracking down al-Qaeda and destroying its facilities we will in the process also destroy its ability to supply drugs into this country and elsewhere.

If he will make a statement on Exercise Saif Sareea 2. [15076]

The objectives of Exercise Saif Sareea 2 were to deploy and sustain a major joint force across strategic distances, and conduct combined war-fighting training in a testing desert environment. As such, it was a major test of many of our joint rapid reaction forces. Overall, our initial judgment is that the exercise has met its aims most successfully.

Can the Minister confirm that a year ago the Secretary of State pressed for the cancellation of Exercise Saif Sareea 2? Was that not because he knew then that severe resource constraints would highlight serious shortcomings in the readiness of tanks, armoured vehicles, helicopters and communication equipment?

The short answer is no, but it is worth while explaining that when any major exercise of this nature is being planned, there should be a full examination of its likely cost implications. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would expect that of the Secretary of State and others involved in making those judgments. He should have listened to the earlier answer; a decision was made to go ahead with the exercise, and it has proved successful.

The Defence Committee, of which I am a member, is taking a great interest in the lessons to be learned from the exercise in Oman. However, all that effort could be wasted if nothing is learned, which was the case after the Gulf war. I hope that my right hon. Friend will ensure that lessons are learned, rather than ignoring them as the previous Government did.

My hon. Friend knows how comprehensive that exercise was, and we are aware that many lessons are to be learned from it. We are beginning to collate all the information so that we can do that, and ensure that we achieve our overall objective of building on the success of all aspects of the strategic defence review.

I am sure that the House will be reassured by the Minister that the Secretary of State did not plan to cancel Exercise Saif Sareea, which has been extremely effective. It went to the very heart of the services' intentions, which is to train for operational capability, as the Chief of the Defence Staff said. Will the Minister tell us, first and foremost, what lessons have been learned so far? I realise that we are to have a meeting tomorrow to discuss this matter in more detail. Will he also give the House an assurance that money will be made available to ensure that there are further such exercises, because they are extremely valuable for operational training to ensure that our troops are able to meet the demands placed on them by Ministers in situations such as that in Afghanistan today?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman's latter point. We learn a lot from live exercises, and major exercises of this nature provide extensive lessons. I know that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that we should take time to analyse all the information, find out how we can build on success and identify any major shortcomings or weaknesses and develop them into strengths. I look forward to meeting the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues tomorrow to examine the details that he has learned from the exercise, and I am sure that it will help with our examination, which will benefit future exercises.

Will the Minister take this opportunity to pay tribute to the airmen and women of RAF Lyneham whose Hercules aircraft played a key role in Exercise Saif Sareea, and who pride themselves on being the first into, and last out of, every operation, wherever in the world they may be deployed? Did he see the report in The Mail on Sunday yesterday, which quoted a senior defence source as saying, about the sale of the base:

"Part of the thinking inevitably will be the amount of money that can be raised for the Treasury by selling the land for such things as housing"?

I could have expected that question from the hon. Gentleman if he had been campaigning from the Back Benches on matters directly affecting his constituency. He did not mention Brize Norton or any of the other RAF bases whose involvement in this exercise has also been very helpful. He knows that a review has been undertaken to consider ways in which we can best utilise the available resources. As I explained in written answers and in a letter to him, he and other hon. Members will be advised when that review has been concluded.

If he will make a statement on undermanning in (a) the Army, (b) the Navy and (c) the RAF. [15077]

All three services are challenged by undermanning, with the crucial factor being balance in skills, not merely total numbers of personnel. The requirement in capability may also change over time. Consistent with this the Navy and RAF plan to achieve their manning targets by 2004 and the Army by 2005.

Is it not the case that the armed forces are collectively 9,000 short of trained strength? Will the Minister comment on his Department's experience of trying to meet that shortage, particularly in Scotland, and trying to use commercial recruiting agencies to build up numbers? Has that been a success, is it being made permanent and will it be extended throughout the United Kingdom?

The hon. Gentleman alights on a particular scheme; we are currently looking at any number of schemes, including pilot schemes and other more established ones, both to examine ways of being more successful in recruiting across a range of areas and to look at retention strategies. That does not stand still. By their very nature, pilot schemes must be tested on the ground. Lessons will be learned from the experience in Scotland, as they will from other pilot schemes. I know that the hon. Gentleman shares my belief that we should do our best to encourage people to look at the armed forces as a career.

When the Minister looks at manning levels in the RAF, can he not go a little further and deny the reports that all three bases, including RAF Brize Norton in my constituency, could close? The report in The Mail on Sunday goes way beyond anything that the Department has said. Does the Minister not understand that having a cost-driven, Treasury-led review at a time when British forces are overseas is the height of crass insensitivity?

It is inevitable that we will change the profile of our activity, with new aircraft coming on stream. The A400M, if and when—

If?

I can deal with the answer, but I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman will gain anything by heckling. Everything must be considered by being examined. The A400M is a certainty for the United Kingdom, and an international programme is also attached to it. A judgment must then be made about which air bases, as referred to by the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), will deploy the A400Ms, along with other aircraft. It is not a case of responding to a newspaper article. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts assurances from members of the Government, both in written answers and letters, that that is an honest review, which will be subject to the same type of consultation that applies to any other bases that have been subject to reviews both recently and further back.

Is not it the case that hundreds of women are on active service in the operation in Afghanistan, including two women pilots? Is that not a good time to talk about the many career opportunities for women in our armed services? We should look at that to make sure that vacancies are filled.

My hon. Friend has makes a very good point. About 300 women in a range of posts are involved in the current conflict in Afghanistan. They are a good example to others and show that women, just as much as men, should consider the armed forces as a career.

If at a time when the defence budget is under such manifest pressure—if Saif Sareea teaches us anything, it teaches us that—the Army and armed forces are undermanned by many thousands, what will happen to the budget if the Minister gets anywhere near his target of full manning? Will it be augmented or will there be procurement cuts?

I shall balance all the priorities when the time arises.

If he will make a statement on his procurement plans in connection with north-east shipyards. [15078]

The Government are undertaking the largest programme of new warship building in this country for decades. We have already placed orders, or announced our intention to place orders, for 15 new warships for the Royal Navy, and we plan further orders for new aircraft carriers, Astute class submarines, type 45 destroyers, the new surface combatant class, as well as a number of support vessels. It remains our policy that all warships will continue to be built in the United Kingdom; that extensive programme offers the UK shipbuilding industry a solid platform of work opportunities.

The Minister will know that the north-east work force is one of the best in the world, but is he aware that the average age of the skilled worker on the Tyne is 50 and rising? The north-east shipyards are important not only to the economy of the north, but to the strategic interest of the country. Will my hon. Friend use his procurement powers to bring orders forward, and will he make a more detailed statement on the aircraft carrier, which is so important to the north-east and the future of its shipyards?

Yes, we are well aware of the value of military work for the north-east. As my hon. Friend knows, Swan Hunter will be placing a great many subcontracts for the vessels that it is building, and I hope that many of those will be placed in the north-east. Contracts have recently been placed, for example, with Sir Joseph Isherwood Ltd. in North Shields and Imtech UK in Middlesbrough. Although the final choice of supplier rests with Swan Hunter as the prime contractor, we hope that many of those orders will be placed and will help to maintain the skills base.

Why are the ALSLs alternative landing ships logistics—being built in Glasgow, when no requirement for them was identified in the strategic defence review? Is not the truth that the ships are part of the Government's industrial and political policy towards Glasgow, rather than a proper part of the defence policy, to make up for the fact that the shipyards in Glasgow failed to win the orders for the roll-on/roll-off ferries?

I must point out that there was a requirement for other ships. We decided to bring the order forward because that was the way we could secure best value for money under our new contracting system, which, as the National Audit Office report indicated last week, is already beginning to pay off very satisfactorily in terms of our procurement programme.

I am sure that the Minister appreciates that Ministry of Defence civilian employment is lower in the north-east than in any other region or nation of the United Kingdom. He also knows, as he has just referred to it, that the design capability for the landing ships about which he spoke exists in the north-east—which, for the benefit of Opposition Members, does not include the city of Glasgow. Will my hon. Friend ensure, by the placing of procurement orders, the continued existence of that design capability in the north-east, whose benefits he has just celebrated and recognised? Unless he offers the basic line of procurement support, that design capability could well cease to exist, to the disbenefit of the north-east and the whole of Britain.

Yes; I am well aware that the north-east is under-represented in terms of Ministry of Defence staff. We have looked into the matter, but I have not been able to identify anything that could conveniently be sent up there. However, that does not mean that we will not continue to look, where possible, to disperse civil servants from the centre to the periphery. The maintenance of the skills base is not just the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence. Nevertheless, the orders for the ALSLs are already in place, and I would expect the north-east to share in the orders to come over the next few years.

If he will make a statement on the role of the Royal Marines in combating international terrorism. [15079]

A detachment of Royal Marines is on the ground at Bagram airport in Afghanistan, and was augmented over the weekend. Operating under US tactical command, they are there as part of a coalition reconnaissance mission to help to secure the airport and make it safe for UN and other diplomatic and humanitarian missions. Although the notice to move of 45 Commando has now been relaxed, 40 Commando Royal Marines remains at very high readiness against possible deployment to meet a range of contingencies.

Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on the press reports of a rift between us and the Americans regarding the deployment of the Marines at Bagram, as well as on the military objectives of the campaign in general? Does he envisage a long-term role for the Marines in building the peace, as they have done so splendidly in Kosovo?

There is simply no truth in the reports to which my hon. Friend refers. The deployment at Bagram was carried out in close consultation with US forces and, as I have indicated to the House, our troops there are under the tactical command of a US officer. We have worked closely with the United States at every stage of the military operation and indeed, of the humanitarian and diplomatic operation that is now under way.

My hon. Friend—if I may call him that—the Member for Portsmouth, North (Syd Rapson) and I have the honour of chairing the all-party group on the Royal Marines, which will be receiving a detailed briefing from the Commandant-General of the Royal Marines in January. The whole House is of course invited, but in the meantime, would the Secretary of State care to say whether he feels that there are now sufficient numbers of Royal Marines at Bagram to maintain their safety? What were the original plans for the number of Royal Marines who were to be posted to Bagram? We are told that that number was curtailed because of lobbying by the Northern Alliance.

I have already told the House that my overriding concern is for the safety of British forces deployed in any theatre, particularly in Afghanistan at the present time. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there are sufficient numbers for their safety. That is constantly reviewed and I assure him that we will continue that process. On his further question, there have been no plans to post Royal Marines, as he so elegantly put it, to Bagram airstrip. There was a range of contingencies 10 days ago, when a range of British forces were moved to a higher state of readiness. Those contingencies have changed in that 10-day period. That is why I judge it appropriate to relax, for some of those forces, their present state of readiness.

Which British forces are stationed in Macedonia. [15080]

Which British forces are in Macedonia. [15089]

The UK deployed some 2,000 troops to Macedonia at the end of August as lead nation in Operation Essential Harvest, the NATO operation to collect weapons from the National Liberation Army. This was a time-limited task and those troops all withdrew by 12 October, having successfully completed their mission. The operation has made a significant contribution to the peace process in Macedonia and I congratulate those involved. Currently, about 40 British service personnel are deployed to Macedonia in headquarters roles at the British Embassy and in support of the Macedonian Government.

I join my right hon. Friend in congratulating our troops in Macedonia. Is not one of the lessons of the action that they took there that, in many more such situations, they will have to be involved in peacekeeping missions and in preventing conflict before it breaks out, rather than dealing with the consequences? Will he talk to other countries and international bodies such as the UN about how that might be brought about?

My hon. Friend asks an interesting question. The answer must be that, yes, on occasion, what he describes may well be a requirement of a joint rapid reaction force, but it depends on the circumstances. Clearly, different demands can be made, whether the initiative is UN-led, part of a NATO deployment, or some other type of European deployment that is part of a NATO deployment. What we have achieved in Macedonia, Sierra Leone, Kosovo and Bosnia has shown that we are capable and are getting better. That is why there is always a request for British troops to be deployed: we are good at what we do.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend is as concerned as I am about the recent serious ethnic conflict in Macedonia. According to certain accounts, some of that conflict has been stirred up by hard-line elements in the Government, so our presence there has been essential. Am not I right in thinking that Germany now leads that deployment? If that is so, is it not a sign that Germany now shows a more confident, active and mature approach to European defence?

Part of Taskforce Harvest, in which United Kingdom troops were originally deployed, involved France, Germany, Greece and Italy. All provided large numbers of troops. My hon. and learned Friend is right to say that Operation Amber Fox is under German leadership. That shows an increasing involvement of European Union countries as their capabilities build alongside ours. It also shows that they can carry out those tasks successfully.

Will the Minister confirm that the operations in Macedonia were undertaken entirely by NATO personnel and assets? Why, therefore, was it believed necessary to set up duplicate structures under the European security and defence policy? Surely EU military structures were totally unnecessary; establishing them snubs NATO European, non-EU, countries such as Turkey.

The current operation is called Operation Amber Fox. I do not necessarily want to shoot the hon. Gentleman's fox, but he is wrong. No duplicate structures were set up and operations in Macedonia were clearly under the command of and controlled by NATO.

The Minister knows that operations in Macedonia and now in Afghanistan have placed an intolerable burden on our intelligence-gathering assets, especially the defence intelligence staff and the Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre. After much probing in mid-October, several specialist reservists were called in specifically to help those two agencies. Why, several weeks later, is not a single reservist under arms?

I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman's question. There was no intolerable pressure on our intelligence-gathering staff. They have performed their tasks admirably, and provide advice and support to those who make the ultimate decisions about finding answers to difficult and complex problems. A request was made to reservists, and only a few have been used.

What recent discussions he has had with his European counterparts on international terrorism. [15082]

I discussed international terrorism with my European counterparts at the capabilities improvement conference in Brussels on 19 and 20 November. In addition, in the past week I have had separate meetings with several ministerial counterparts, addressing international terrorism among other topics.

I thank my right hon. Friend. Has he discussed with his European counterparts the implications of the action in Afghanistan for European defence—especially, whether it has highlighted the need for European nations collectively to improve their defence capabilities?

I suggested that to my European defence counterparts at the capabilities improvement conference. It is important to recognise that events in Afghanistan have further emphasised the need for European nations to improve their military capabilities. I set out that message at the conference and in a series of bilateral meetings with my counterparts. I am pleased that good progress has been made and that further progress is in prospect.

Will the Secretary of State admit that some of our European counterparts have been far less enthusiastic than us about our campaign against international terrorism? One or two have been decidedly hostile. Does he agree that it is satisfactory that we are still able to make decisions as a sovereign nation to support the United States in its, and our, campaign against international terrorism?

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I cannot think of a single European nation that has not been equally enthusiastic in its determination to tackle international terrorism. Many European continental nations have experienced the frustration of not being able to get their forces into the theatre of operations quickly enough to participate. I repeat that our emphasis on European defence is in order to improve European military capabilities. Our European partners share that ambition.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's answer, but we all realise that we are working in NATO in a day-to-day relationship, and that our NATO partners have certain strengths and skills, because they have had an opportunity to use them that we have not recently had. Are those skills available to all partners in NATO, and are they being rolled out across the NATO theatre?

A range of capabilities is available to NATO countries. One of the advantages for the United Kingdom is that we have been able to build on the work conducted through the strategic defence review process. It is important that other countries recognise the need to be able to deploy their forces rapidly into potential theatres of conflict. That is accepted across the board by our NATO partners and by EU countries, and it underlies NATO's work on the defence capabilities initiative and on the European Union headline goal process.

Will the Secretary of State tell us whether his recent discussions with his European counterparts reviewed the number of coalition casualties sustained in the conflict so far? In particular, will he tell us whether any of the British casualties have been evacuated back to the United Kingdom?

There was no discussion of casualties at the meetings. The British casualties have been evacuated back to the United Kingdom.

If he will make a statement on the recruitment of trained medical staff to the armed forces, with particular reference to the fields of orthopaedics and anaesthetics. [15084]

We have acknowledged that there are serious manpower shortages in a number of areas of the defence medical services, including orthopaedic surgeons and anaesthetists. To improve the situation in the short to medium term, we are seeking to recruit fully trained individuals, particularly in the critical shortage areas. A number of recruiting advertisements for general practitioners were placed in professional journals earlier this year, and advertisements for anaesthetists were placed somewhat later. The response rate has been promising, but it is too early to comment on the success of these initiatives.

I am pleased that there are initiatives to assist the armed forces in recruiting the people that they need. Does my hon. Friend agree that the most important issue is the quality of the partnerships between the two organisations under pressure: the NHS staff and the medical services? Will he assure us that those partnerships are of high quality, that they are able to act flexibly, and that they are used often to ensure that they are put to good use in getting people into the services?

Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Our hospital units have been up and running now for several years. It is fair to say that, in the initial stages, there were some difficulties in marrying the two cultures. I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that co-operation between the NHS hosts and their military counterparts in these units is now very good, and we are beginning to benefit from the synergy between the two organisations. This will be of particular benefit as we attempt to train the number of specialists that we shall need over the next few years, to meet the undoubted shortfalls that we have at present.

It is not recruitment that is the problem, but retention of trained service personnel in the medical field. That situation has been made far worse—even disastrous—by the stated closure of the Royal Hospital, Haslar, in my constituency, leading to a shortfall of about 75 per cent. in some key faculties. Has the Minister seen a document called "Strategic Vision", an agreement between the Ministry of Defence and the national health service, which confirms the future of Haslar hospital for the next seven years? Does he accept that, if the hospital were to be confirmed on a permanent basis, it would help him to retain the medical staff that he needs?

I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that Haslar can exist at present only as part of the medical services provided in Portsmouth. When the new hospital is built in six or seven years' time, with sufficient capacity for both military and civilian use, there will, I suspect, be very little further need for Haslar. I have made it plain to the hon. Gentleman on many occasions that we have an obligation to provide a case mix for specialists, and proper professional training for those at registrar level. Haslar does not provide that on its own, and can exist only as part of the integrated services in the Portsmouth region.

If he will make a statement on his plans for the future involvement of British forces in combating international terrorism. [15086]

If he will make a statement on his plans for the future involvement of British forces in combating international terrorism. [15087]

Given the rapid pace of events, I have concluded that it is no longer necessary for all the units placed 10 days ago on 48 hours' notice to move to remain at that state of readiness. With the exception of elements of 2 Para and 16 Air Assault Brigade and their key enablers, the bulk of those forces will revert to their previous state of readiness and be able to move within a week. Before any decisions are taken to deploy any of those forces to Afghanistan, we shall take account of the situation on the ground, including reports from the detachment at Bagram, the progress of the political process being set in train in Bonn this week, and consultations in the coalition.

Following the media reports, particularly in The Daily Telegraph this morning, that the United States is to extend the war on terrorism to include possible action in Somalia and Sudan, are there are any current plans for British forces to be involved in such action with the United States?

As I told the House earlier, our military action is focused on Afghanistan, but we recognise that terrorism is a wider problem, which has been addressed since 11 September. That is why we shall continue to take action on the financing of terrorism and the ability of terrorists to develop weapons, as well as on the movement of terrorists from one country to another. That action will continue. Indeed, the military action in Afghanistan will send the clearest message to any state that is tempted to support terrorism.

My right hon. Friend has said that the mission at Bagram is well defined, but there seems to be confusion as to how welcome British forces in and around Kabul are to the Northern Alliance. He will agree that the situation there is far different from that in Kosovo, where there was one well defined enemy rather than many barely distinguishable recent allies who history shows are likely to turn on each other—let alone outsiders—at the drop of a hat. Will he therefore assure the House that British troops will not be committed to Kabul on peacekeeping duties without the agreement of the major Afghan factions, and explain what actions the Government have taken to encourage the United Nations to put together such a force in case it is needed?

That is obviously one contingency of which we shall take account before making any decision to deploy further forces in Afghanistan. It is important that we work closely with our international partners in the coalition and, equally, with the United Nations. The work undertaken to ensure that the representative elements of the Northern Alliance reach Bonn is a visible sign of that. It is important that the United Kingdom give military support where necessary to the efforts to rebuild Afghanistan.

Will the Secretary of State ensure that in no circumstances are British forces left as a permanent garrison in Afghanistan? Does he agree that, when we reach the phase of reconstruction and peacekeeping, it will be far more appropriate for the forces employed for those purposes to come from currently non-combatant countries of appropriate Islamic background and to be under the auspices of the UN?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The point about a rapid reaction force is that it should be able to get into a potential conflict quickly. Logically, it should also be able to get out equally quickly. That is the lesson of the deployment to Macedonia, where we successfully showed that we could achieve success by limiting our presence to a brief operation, allowing those forces to be used again should the eventuality arise.

Can the Secretary of State confirm whether any units or individuals from the Royal Marine Reserve have been mobilised for service in Afghanistan? If so, are any such personnel serving there?

That is not the position for the moment, but obviously we continue to pay regard to the important role that reserves can play. As the hon. Gentleman will understand from an earlier exchange involving one of my ministerial colleagues, efforts have been made to utilise the skills immediately available from the reserves, and that process will continue as and when we require them.

What progress the British military contribution is making in the campaign against international terrorism. [15091]

The United Kingdom has been involved from the outset in the campaign against international terrorism. The Royal Navy has fired Tomahawk land attack missiles at a range of terrorist and military targets, and the RAF has flown more than 200 sorties in support of United States strike aircraft. The Royal Navy has an amphibious task group in the region, and we have deployed a detachment of Royal Marines to Bagram airfield. As I have also made plain, British forces have been engaged in operations on the ground, working closely with US forces.

I thank my right hon. Friend for those comments. Does he recognise that we must have the right equipment for the fight against international terrorism, and that rapid deployment capability is one of the main strengths of that? Does he also recognise the need for a heavy-lift aircraft, such as the A400M? Can that programme be brought forward?

No Defence Question Time would be complete without my hon. Friend making his customary contribution on A400M. I am delighted to be able to agree with him yet again.