If he will make a statement about the United Kingdom's role in international peacekeeping in Afghanistan. [24462]

If he will make a statement on the number of British troops deployed in Afghanistan. [24465]

What size of force has been deployed to Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. [24466]

As I told the House on 19 December and 10 January, the United Kingdom has agreed to lead the international security assistance force—ISAF—in Afghanistan. Under the terms of the Bonn agreement of 5 December 2001, ISAF will assist the Afghanistan interim Administration to provide security and stability in Kabul. ISAF will play a vital part in the international community's support to the Afghan people in the difficult task of rebuilding their country.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in addition to Britain's lead contribution to ISAF, an additional force is being sent to repair and to operate Kabul international airport and that that is absolutely vital to allow aid supplies to get through to the people of Kabul? Will he join me in commending the professionalism of the British troops who will be working in Afghanistan in the aftermath of the oppressive Taliban regime?

My hon. Friend is right. It is an important job to be able to ensure access to Afghanistan, a country that has been ravaged by many years of war. The present arrangements for Bagram are satisfactory, but I would not go any further than that. Therefore, the ability to make use of Kabul international airport will be an important element in speeding up the deployment of ISAF. In addition to the main contribution to ISAF, as I said earlier, we are temporarily deploying another 300 Army and Royal Air Force personnel to repair and operate Kabul international airport. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's observations.

I welcome the presence of British troops under General McColl. I am sure that they will do an excellent job in Kabul.

The issue of overstretch is not exacerbated by a deployment that is limited in time. As I told the House the other day in a statement about Afghanistan, it is important that we are able to limit the deployment of our forces to the three months that I have set out. I cannot absolutely guarantee to the House, nor would it be sensible to do so, that some members of Britain's armed forces will not remain after that three-month period, but there will certainly be a significant reduction in numbers once we cease being lead nation.

Can the Secretary of State confirm that, on 19 December, he talked about 1,500 troops and that that figure has now risen to 2,100 overall? Will he now set a limit on the number of British troops committed to Afghanistan and can I press him to be a bit more precise about what proportion of that number is likely to remain, on any view, after the three-month stint is over?

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there was an increase from about 1,500, although if he checks the terms of my original statement, he will see that it was heavily qualified. An increase to 1,800 is certainly not at all surprising in the very difficult circumstances of Afghanistan. The figure of 2,100 that he quotes includes the additional 300 to whom I have just referred and who will be there on a very temporary basis to deal with the problems at Kabul international airport.

Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the effectiveness of the peacekeeping force is as dependent on maintaining the international coalition as it is on the undoubted excellence of the forces on the ground? Does he fear, as do I, that international cohesion will be in danger of falling apart if the United States does not alter its attitude towards, and its treatment of, Taliban prisoners? If they are not to be kept under the terms of the Geneva convention, will he ensure that they at least have the protection of basic human rights?

I am afraid that I do not accept my hon. Friend's premise. The biggest difficulty with which the Minister of Defence has had to deal in recent weeks is the number of countries that wanted to participate in ISAF. Some 18 countries in total are participating. The practical problem that we faced in organising that force was explaining to a number of disappointed countries that we could not manage to take their forces as well. There is no danger of the international coalition falling apart in the way suggested by my hon. Friend. Certainly, it is important that whoever is responsible for holding prisoners in Afghanistan ensures that they are treated with proper respect for international law. I know of no evidence to indicate that the United States is not doing that.

If the joint patrols between Afghan units and British units were attacked, who would have operational command? Would it be the British or the Afghan units?

In the event of the joint forces coming under attack, I have little doubt that they would co-operate together as successfully as they have done in the course of joint patrolling. I want to emphasise that British forces, as part of ISAF, have robust rules of engagement that are entirely appropriate to their mission. They allow those forces to defend themselves robustly in the face of any threat to them, so I do not anticipate that difficulty arising.

Does the Secretary of State recall that at column 669 of Hansard on 26 November last year, he agreed with me that British troops, as coming from one of the combatant forces, should be used in Afghanistan only for brief periods, against specific targets, and not as an occupation force? Why has he changed his mind? Or have he and the service chiefs been overruled by our increasingly gung-ho and vainglorious Prime Minister?

I accept neither the premise nor the conclusion of the hon. Gentleman's observations. All the indications that I have given to the House of the likely duration of any operations sit entirely with what I said in those comments. We are talking about a brief period of three months as lead nation, in which we will make a significant contribution to the position in Afghanistan. I am sure that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that what is important about the deployment of ISAF is that it is there not as an occupying force, but with the consent of the interim Administration, pursuant to a United Nations resolution. It is there to ensure that Afghanistan cannot descend into the chaos that we saw in the all too recent past, so that there is no support there for the international terrorism that led directly to the events of 11 September and so that we win the peace, having very successfully won the military conflict.

I thank my right hon. Friend for the helpful response that he gave last week in his statement on reserves. Can he confirm reports in today's papers that the Government are to exercise their right of a compulsory call-up of reserves? If so, how long will that last and how many people will it involve?

I was able to tell the House that we were actively considering the possibility of further mobilisation of reservists to assist in the continuing campaign against terrorism. Since the call-out order was signed last October to permit reservists to support the operation, 74 reservists from all three services have volunteered to be called out. Others have been supporting the operation and other forms of service, and we are immensely grateful to them all.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for informing the House about the reserves, but it would have been helpful to have answers to our written questions that were tabled last week on the same topic, instead of a planted question and a leak today.

No decision has been taken yet about who will take over, which is why I was not in a position on Thursday to answer the hon. Gentleman's question. I am afraid that I am in no better position to answer his question today. No decision has been reached. We have received an offer from Turkey, which would be willing to take over at the end of the three-month period which I set out with regard to the United Kingdom's responsibilities. That is a matter to be discussed with Turkey and other contributors to the international force.

Pursuant to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), can the Secretary of State at least confirm that the 1,800 British troop commitment to ISAF will be substantially reduced after the 90 days, which is clearly the impression that he sought to give, so that he can restore their availability for training and other possible operations?

That is precisely what I said the other day and again today.

I am grateful for that assurance. The right hon. Gentleman has given it more clearly now than we had it before. However, it represents yet another major new commitment, on top of the thousands of troops that the Government have committed to open-ended operations in Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone and elsewhere. Does the Secretary of State plan simply to ignore the warnings of former chiefs of staff such as Field Marshal Lord Bramall, who warned that that would "significantly increase overstretch", or Field Marshal Lord Inge, who warned in December that the UK was "already dangerously over-committed" and said:

"We shall have very little left to deal with the unexpected; and at a time when they"—

"are under-recruited and when the defence budget is already underfunded",

"the defence programme was underfunded before 11 September"?

I certainly take account of the views of the former chiefs of staff, but I take advice from the current chiefs of staff.

If he will make a statement on his discussions with the Commonwealth War Graves Commission concerning the graves of soldiers killed at the Somme. [24463]

Neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence nor I have had any talks with the Commonwealth War Graves Commission concerning the graves of soldiers killed at the Somme. However, I am aware that the French Government have not released any approved plans for a new international airport which might affect historic battlefields to the north of Paris. Plans for a new airport in Picardy, 15 miles to the south of the Somme battlefields, were prematurely leaked to the media late last year. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission is in discussion with the French authorities, who will provide details of any proposals that might adversely affect British war graves.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware that according to the Soldiers of Gloucestershire museum, more than 8,000 men from my constituency and the surrounding area gave their lives for this country in the first world war, and that under the rumoured plans for the airport in France, many of those graves would have ended up being exhumed, as well as 23,000 graves of German soldiers? Does my hon. Friend agree that if that happened, it would be a dishonour to the men who fought for our country and made the ultimate sacrifice for us all?

Yes. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission is in close contact with the French Government about the matter. The French Government have, in general, behaved with great sensitivity with regard to any war graves in the vicinity of the Flanders battlefield. I can assure my hon. Friend that were plans to proceed and were I to have any doubts at all about what was happening, I would make strong representations on the subject.

I thank the Minister for the assurance that he has just given. Such matters must be handled with the utmost sensitivity by Governments. In that connection, can he tell us how far plans have advanced for a national memorial for service men and women who have died on active service since 1945? Not a lot seems to have been said since the Government announced that last year.

I can say that plans are progressing. Of course, it is not the Government who are doing that planning, but ex-service organisations and others with a great interest in the matter. The plans are proceeding satisfactorily, although I accept that the process may appear slow to the hon. Gentleman. However, progress is being made and I suspect that an announcement will be made in the not-too-distant future.

What steps he is taking to avoid overstretch in the Army. [24464]

What moves he has made to reduce overstretch of the armed forces. [24470]

We remain committed to achieving a balance of commitments for our armed forces that is consistent with the strategic defence review. We aim to commit personnel to operations for no longer than is necessary to achieve the military aim. The success of that policy is already evident. To date, there has been a significant improvement in the number of personnel committed to operations, in comparison with the position at the height of the Kosovo campaign in 1999. In the Army, although there are variations between units, the average unit tour interval has improved, with the latest assessment being around 28 months—the best figure for five years and one that is above the strategic defence review target of 24 months. Royal Navy harmony standards are being maintained, and in the Royal Air Force, only about 2 per cent. of trained personnel are exceeding the planned limit for separated service.

Well, apparently there is no overstretch, but it seems to me that we have troops all around the globe, in Kosovo, Bosnia and Afghanistan. We have just heard about the commitment of 1,800 personnel in Afghanistan. My question is this: is it our objective to become a global policeman, and if not, why not?

I hope that my hon. Friend will join me in supporting greater commitment in terms of our armed forces from all hon. Members. The more that we recognise the very crucial role that the forces play internationally, the greater the prospect of obtaining people to join them. He is right to say that apparently there is no overstretch, although that is not a word that we would use. Clearly, there are pressure points in some of the key areas and we are taking a range of measures to tackle them.

I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he confirm that all the units deploying this year to Northern Ireland, Afghanistan or the Balkans will do so at full manning strength? If so, is that at peacetime or wartime establishment?

We will do our best to achieve those objectives. That depends on two factors, one of which is maintaining recruitment. I know that the hon. Gentleman would support us on all the measures that we are taking in that regard. Also, there must be an improvement on retention of key personnel. If we can achieve those objectives, we will be able to meet the premise that he set out.

With this overstretch in mind, is the Minister aware that, in Afghanistan, there are more than 25,000 unexploded ordnances following the American bombing, not to mention the 10 million landmines left in that country following the Soviet era? Will he ensure that our troops are adequately covered and have sufficiently trained men in clearing these unexploded bombs, to ensure that their safety is intact?

We take this issue very seriously indeed. My hon. Friend is right about the potential extent of the problem in Afghanistan, although it is not exclusive to that particular theatre. If time permits, all troops are given the best information that we can possibly provide in training terms and in practical terms on the ground. Of course, we deploy very significant key personnel to tackle the threat posed by unexploded ordnance.

Can the Minister deny that the Government themselves are partly responsible for overstretch, because the number of medically downgraded personnel in the armed forces has increased by more than 50 per cent. since they came to power and more than 10 per cent. of the Army is now medically downgraded? Bearing in mind that the injuries are often caused by the rigorous nature of training and duties, will the Government agree to fast-tracking of service personnel for medical purposes?

I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is trying to prove. Is he saying that our forces are incapable of carrying out the functions that we ask of them? If so, I wholly disagree with him. Being downgraded does not necessarily mean that someone is unfit for duty. The issue is clearly more complex than the hon. Gentleman's simplistic approach implies.

What did the former Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Guthrie, mean when he said on 17 December at column 46 of Hansard that our armed forces were "dangerously over-committed"? The Secretary of State has said that he takes advice from the current Chief of the Defence Staff. However, in his Royal United Services Institute lecture, the current chief said that something would have to give. Did he mean that we are attempting to do too much with too little? If not, what could he have meant?

That was a range of open-ended questions. The hon. Gentleman may wish to raise Lord Guthrie's comments with the noble Member, who is an independent voice in the other place and is entitled to express his opinion. A healthy debate is taking place about what we do to tackle all our commitments. A key factor is getting resources from the centre. That is what the current Chief of the Defence Staff meant. We cannot go on doing everything, and we therefore have to be specific. That was implicit and explicit in the strategic defence review.

What recent discussions he has had with his NATO counterparts on measures to combat international terrorism. [24468]

As reaffirmed during discussions at NATO Defence Ministers' meetings in Brussels on 18 and 19 December, the Alliance is committed to countering the threat posed by international terrorism. In particular, Defence Ministers agreed that the Alliance's military concepts should evolve in keeping with the threat posed by international terrorism, and that NATO's defence capabilities should be adequate to meet the demands that it will face.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I am sure that, like me, he welcomes Russia's support for the coalition against international terrorism. What implications will that have for Russia's future relationship with NATO?

I have had several opportunities to meet Russian colleagues, including the December NATO ministerial meetings, when we discussed the impact of international terrorism. The Russian Defence Minister visited the United Kingdom on 19 to 21 December for extended talks on the fight against terrorism. He informed us that he had issued instructions that a hospital that the Russian Ministry of Emergency Situations had set up north of Kabul should be available for British and other ISAF troops if required.

Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in expressing the House's appreciation of the tremendous work of British troops in providing security and stability in Afghanistan and many other locations? Does he agree that many of those troops are double-hatted for NATO purposes? Despite the onerous and unavoidable operations in which they are engaged, it is essential that the tempo of their training to fight at the highest intensity is maintained. Will he assure us that, whatever the demands and obligations that the troops are invited to undertake, the tempo of training will be maintained at all costs?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for British deployment to Afghanistan and his general observations about British troops. He is right to emphasise the importance of the tempo of training. Like other hon. Members, he is aware that members of Britain's armed forces recently participated in Operation Saif Sareea II, which is the largest such exercise since the Gulf war. All aspects of our requirement to deploy rapidly were thoroughly and rigorously tested. Recent events in Afghanistan have again demonstrated that ability. The hon. Gentleman is right; training must be maintained if we are to keep up those high standards.

In his discussions with his NATO counterparts, what has the Defence Secretary had to say about the role of a NATO member, namely the United States, in removing prisoners from Afghanistan, hooded and manacled together, and flying them in that condition for 24 hours to an airbase in Cuba? Is that legal? What law is being applied? Does the Secretary of State not think that, if the international community is preaching democracy and the rule of law, it is time for it to practise it, rather than taking people out of Afghanistan illegally?

As I indicated earlier, there is no doubting the legality of the way in which those combatants have been imprisoned, or the legality of the right of the United States or any other country to remove them for trial. There is also no doubting the United States' commitment, publicly expressed, to recognise and maintain standards of international law relating to the way in which prisoners are dealt with.

When he will sign a contract for the procurement of A400M aircraft for the Royal Air Force; how many aircraft will be ordered; and to what delivery time scale. [24469]

The A400M contract was signed on 18 December by the Organisation for Joint Armaments Co-operation, on behalf of the partner nations, and by the contractor Airbus Military. It provides for the development and manufacture of 196 aircraft in a single launch order, of which the UK's share is 25 aircraft. The contract will enter into force once final Bundestag approval has been given for the German commitment. Our in-service date is 2010 and we expect the last aircraft to be in service by 2014.

Notwithstanding the fact that the Royal Air Force's transport capability is to be much enhanced by the welcome acquisition of four C17s and by the modernisation of half the Hercules fleet with C130Js, will the Minister tell the House what the likely cost of the A400M to the Royal Air Force will be? Would that cost be greatly increased, were the Bundestag not to approve the second tranche of aeroplanes on which it has as yet deferred its decision?

I am afraid that the exact price of the contract is commercially confidential, but our commitment in the memorandum of understanding is for funding totalling approximately 3 billion euros—that is approximately £2 billion, for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman—covering development, production and initial in-service costs.

I know that my hon. Friend is aware that many jobs in the north-west and other parts of the country depend on the A400M. Will he use his good offices to get an early signature from the Bundestag to ensure that this project goes ahead?

Confident though I am of my abilities in this field, I do not know whether I would have much influence on that decision. I can say that we fully expect the relevant committee to sign up to this at the end of this month, and that there should therefore be no delay in proceeding with the contract.

The Minister will be aware of the importance of aircraft orders to many hon. Members' constituencies, particularly in the light of the announcement last week of 950 job losses at Westland in the south-west. I thank the Secretary of State for agreeing to see me in the near future to discuss future orders relating to Westland. Will the Minister confirm that his Department will take every possible action to ensure that aircraft orders are brought forward in a timely way, in the interests not only of our constituents but of the effectiveness of our armed forces?

We sympathise greatly with those affected when redundancies such as these occur. However, decisions on the size of the work force must primarily be a commercial matter for the company. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the Apache helicopter contract has peaked, and the last machines are now being delivered. We therefore have no current need for any further work from the company. I cannot say at present, as any other helicopters that we may intend to buy are still at the concept planning stage, whether there is any possibility of bringing anything forward.

Further considering the question of aircraft contracts, is the Minister able to comment on Saturday's press reports that the Secretary of State for Defence is active in an intensive campaign to boost arms sales to India, in particular to promote a contract for the sale of 60 Hawk jets? In the light of the current—

Order. The hon. Lady's question is not relevant to the question before us. She must sit down.

I am sure that the Minister is aware of the substantial lobby of Parliament today by the work force of BAE Systems, not least the 1,000 members of staff at Woodford in my constituency who have been made redundant because the RJX civil aircraft programme has been phased out. Does he accept that if the contract for the A400M project goes ahead, Airbus properly allocating work from other factories to Woodford, which is one of the most modern production plants in the aerospace industry, would be appropriate so that those heavy redundancies might be offset?

The A400M contract will support thousands of jobs in this country, but I am afraid that where those jobs are is a matter for the company, not Her Majesty's Government.

The Minister well knows that I hope that the A400M will be based at RAF Lyneham, in my constituency, to replace the ageing C130K Hercules fleet, but will he confirm that only four of the 51 Hercules available at Lyneham are properly equipped to be used in international security and assistance force tasks in Afghanistan? Is that not worrying for the nation? How does he intend to get 2,100 troops to Afghanistan—he said that 600 have been taken so far—if he has only four operative planes? Is not that another case of doing too much with too little?

No, it is not. We are having no difficulty at all in deploying our people to Afghanistan. The deployment is building up and will continue to do so until the end of the month when we reach the numbers forecast. We are well aware that we need to provide enhanced defensive aid suites for more of our aircraft, and we are doing just that.

What recent steps the armed forces have taken to promote racial equality in the services. [24471]

The armed forces have done much in recent years to promote racial equality and create an environment free from harassment and unlawful discrimination. That includes establishing confidential advice and support helplines; a network of equal opportunities advisers; equality training, focus groups and surveys; monitoring and evaluating ethnic minority recruitment, progression and retention; and a vigorous recruiting and outreach programme to encourage more people from ethnic minorities to join the armed forces.

My right hon. Friend is aware of some pretty dreadful cases, such as that of the son of my constituent, who was racially abused and bullied in the Army. The perpetrators went unpunished while he was court-martialled for going AWOL. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that racial abuse will not be tolerated under this Government? We criticised the previous Government for not doing enough to recruit ethnic minorities to the Army, so what steps is he taking to ensure that we meet our targets to recruit ethnic minorities and, indeed, retain them in the armed forces?

Racial harassment should not happen and we shall take every possible step to ensure that it does not happen. That is the message that should go out firmly from everyone who can bring influence to bear.

Can the Minister tell the House what feedback the Government have had about their equal opportunities corporate approach document? Will he give me a personal commitment that he would investigate to the best of his ability if any of us brought evidence either of a racial or of a sexual discrimination case in the armed forces?

Those issues should be properly dealt with through appropriate procedures to establish the facts of the matter, but my door would never be closed to representations from right hon. or hon. Members if they were concerned about the way in which a particular case was being dealt with. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan), we must address this issue robustly and aggressively to ensure that if there is a problem, we eliminate it as quickly as possible.

If he will make a statement on the role of special forces in countering terrorism since 11 September. [24473]

The United Kingdom's special forces have a key role to play in countering terrorism: a responsibility they have had for many years. As a result of the events of 11 September, we are considering the capabilities, including those of Britain's special forces, that we need to deal with the challenges posed by international terrorism. That is being taken forward as part of our work on a new chapter for the strategic defence review.

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, which was rather fuller than I expected, and I am grateful for just that. Does the Secretary of State have a view about the amount of information that can be given about the role of special forces? He will be aware that, in the past, special forces have felt that all their activities should be kept secret, whereas those in the United States are given, if not full, then at least some, publicity. Has the Secretary of State considered giving slightly more publicity to the role of our special forces than it has previously had?

The view of the Secretary of State is that the disclosure that we currently allow is exactly the right amount. There are a number of reasons for that policy, which have pertained for a long time. First, further disclosure would forfeit the element of surprise, which is essential for the operational effectiveness of UK special forces. Secondly, it is vital to protect the identities of special forces personnel. They are a key element of our anti-terrorism capability, and are significant targets for terrorists. Disclosure of identities and capabilities would have severe consequences for the effectiveness of our special forces and the safety and morale of personnel.

Given the need for an international response to international terrorism, does my right hon. Friend envisage a role for NATO in developing a military anti-terrorist capability?

NATO is examining the implications of the events of 11 September for its military responsiveness. I am sure that that will be one of the debates in NATO, but that work is far from concluded, and I anticipate that it will be informed by the work being conducted in the United Kingdom on the extra chapter to the strategic defence review.

I appreciate the reasons for the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), but does the Secretary of State accept that the most important consideration is the security of our special forces, and that the less we know about what they are doing, the better?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and that is the reason for the present disclosure policy.

There remains concern about the killing of the Mazar-i-Sharif prisoners during their apparent uprising. Some members of the special forces were present at that event. Will the Secretary of State arrange for their reports on the matter to be published, so that we can clear up some of the fears and concerns that people have expressed?

My hon. Friend talks about an apparent uprising. I can confirm to him that there was an uprising, when prisoners tried to take control of the armoury and obtained various weapons, which were then used not only against coalition but against Afghan forces in the area. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will understand that, for reasons of operational security, I shall not go into specific details about the involvement of any British troops in that incident. However, I can tell my hon. Friend that British troops went to the aid of their US colleagues, and under heavy fire attempted to recover two US personnel who had apparently been captured by Taliban fighters. Their involvement was a perfectly proper response to the attack on their fellow coalition members, and they showed great bravery in their efforts to secure their release.

What plans he has to adjust defence capabilities to cope with terrorist attacks. [24474]

The work being conducted in the Ministry of Defence on a new chapter to the strategic defence review is designed to ensure that we have the right concepts, forces and capabilities in place to deal with the threats that were manifest on 11 September. That work builds on the sound foundation of the strategic defence review, which left the United Kingdom well placed to meet the additional challenges that we now face.

I agree that the SDR has proved a robust tool for the purpose of defence planning. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that Members of Parliament, and indeed members of the public, will have an early opportunity to contribute to the new chapter?

I can give that assurance. The work will be done in an open and inclusive manner. We will in February make available discussion material setting out the range of areas that we are considering. It will reflect our emerging thinking, and we will seek views. I hope that that will give interested parties an opportunity to contribute, but let me emphasise that we will welcome contributions from Members of Parliament, members of the public and others with particular interests or expertise at any time.

I welcome any opportunity to strengthen this country's anti-terrorism defences, but does the Secretary of State know of any example of its embarking on an overseas anti-terrorism peacekeeping mission over the past 50 years without that mission's being prefaced with confident remarks about it all being over in a few months, followed by finding ourselves involved for years and years?

I can give the hon. Gentleman the example that he seeks. The mission concerned took place in Macedonia for 30 days in August last year.

Srebrenica experienced an appalling atrocity on NATO's doorstep, in which 8,000 innocent people were killed. The perpetrators of the crime and their whereabouts are known. Why is it taking so long to bring General Mladic and Radovan Karadzic to justice?

Obviously, given the opportunity of bringing either of those people—who are indicted war criminals—to justice, British forces would take it.

The Secretary of State is doubtless familiar with the Defence Select Committee's report on the 1998 SDR, which said that

"the government's manifesto promised a 'strategic defence and security review' … we are still awaiting the strategic security review. In a sense we have received a two-dimensional review of a three-dimensional world".

All Ministers always pay the closest possible attention to the work of Select Committees. Let me take this opportunity to congratulate the Defence Select Committee, as it was then constituted, on its recommendations, which will play an important part in the work that we are currently doing.

If he will make a statement on the role that is envisaged for the European NATO non-European Union countries in the European security and defence policy. [24476]

The European Union is committed to the fullest possible involvement of the non-EU European allies and the EU accession partners in the European security and defence policy. The Nice European Council agreed a detailed set of provisions governing consultation with those countries, and arrangements for their participation in EU-led operations.

Thirteen of the 19 flashpoints involving terrorism have a bearing on Turkey. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Turkey and the other NATO non-European Union countries feel frozen out of the European security and defence project? Will he always bear in mind the fact that, whereas NATO has been exclusively and successfully concerned with the defence and security of our continent, the ESDP is primarily concerned with giving a political identity to the European Union?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman takes that view. Even if that ever was the case, it certainly is not today. Non-EU NATO allies are not being frozen out of the arrangements in any way; they are participating in a mutually supportive system that will allow a clear exchange of ideas and expertise, and will allow non-EU NATO allies to participate in EU-led operations where appropriate.

What assessment he has made of the use of the Navy in the Afghan war. [24477]

Royal Navy submarines fired a small number of Tomahawk land attack missiles on 7 and 13 October 2001. The UK assigned an amphibious task group led by the aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious, converted for helicopter operations, to the coalition. Other Royal Navy vessels were assigned, including seven Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels, which provided logistical support.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that extensive answer. When he answered my question of similar ilk, he said:

"At the end of the process, a statement will be required as to how we go forward in terms of a new chapter of the strategic defence review."—[Official Report,29 October 2001; Vol. 373, c. 626.]

Irrespective of the events of 11 September, I know that my hon. Friend is aware that the Government have an extensive shipbuilding programme planned. Orders have already been placed to meet some of the commitments. Clearly, we must learn lessons from every set of circumstances. I assure him that lessons will be learned if they need to be from the current deployment of our maritime force in the Arabian sea.

Will the Minister join me in congratulating all members of the Royal Navy on the excellent work that they performed at the beginning of the mission? I say that because a member of my family was part of that force. What progress is being made with the Tomahawk mission, and will all the submarines be equipped with that weapon?

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the extensive role played by members of the Royal Navy. In a statement to the House dealing with the situation in Afghanistan, I said that in excess of 4,000 naval personnel were being deployed. The figure remains roughly of that magnitude. In my earlier answer, I indicated the extent to which they continued to play a role, so our thanks are due to them just as much as they are due to those who are being deployed on land in Afghanistan.

Is there any chance of Royal Navy vessels bringing to this country some of the distressed animals from Kabul zoo? Does my right hon. Friend recall the correspondence that I have had with his Department about the plight of the animals in the zoo and the need for veterinary attention? I now understand that vets have gone into the zoo. What involvement has there been on the part of Ministry of Defence personnel in helping the animals and protecting the vets in the zoo?

I try to be as helpful as I can be in answering questions. I do not have immediate information as to the specifics of any hands-on involvement by our personnel, but I shall try to find out whether any of them have given assistance to the civil authorities and to those who take care of animals in the zoo.

If he will make a statement on the future use of the new ranges in Shoeburyness. [24479]

QinetiQ has a contract with the Ministry of Defence to operate facilities across all the test and evaluation ranges until the end of March 2003. Day-to-day operations at the new ranges in Shoeburyness are being conducted by QinetiQ on the MOD's behalf under this contract, although the site remains MOD-owned. The company is pursuing opportunities for diversification, where appropriate, as part of its commercial strategy.

The Minister will be aware of the huge uncertainty of the people of Shoeburyness, and their local Member of Parliament, about the future of a large and exciting site. For example, in the past few months we have been told that QinetiQ, which runs the site, was going to be a PLC company with a private shareholding. However, that has now been abandoned. We were then told that there would be an agricultural project employing 1,000 people. That too has been abandoned. Now we are told that the future of the range as a range is under review.

I must admire the hon. Gentleman's capacity to wring a great deal out of a single question. Perhaps I could try to answer as much of it as I can in the time allowed me by the Speaker. First, all our ranges are under review because, frankly, we must decide on the most cost-effective way of using them. I am well aware of the uncertainty that this poses for the people employed on our sites. I visited Shoeburyness last year and had the opportunity to see for myself its excellent facilities. However, our overall programme is subject to some doubt. We must be sure about how much use of our facilities we can make at each of the sites that we still use. With regard to QinetiQ, I would be thought to have poor commercial judgment if I attempted to float the company on the stock exchange, given the present state of technological stocks.

I am the Member of Parliament for the constituency opposite Shoeburyness, and the bangs from the ranges cause windows to break and doors to rattle, and they scare dogs, cats and horses.

Rubbish.

We in north Kent would vote for the ranges to be closed. [Interruption.] We hear noises apart from the guns. My hon. Friend the Minister has kindly asked my constituents to visit Shoeburyness to see the site. Could we ask him instead to come and listen to the noises that cause windows to break and rattle the windows of old people's homes, scaring the hell out of them?

That does not sound like the peaceful and idyllic part of our beautiful country that I thought north Kent was. Perhaps my hon. Friend is hearing the noise that the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) makes in defence of his ranges. We have invited people from my hon. Friend's constituency and from neighbouring constituencies to go and see for themselves what goes on there. We investigate complaints fully. I must say that I find some bemusement at the level of complaint, compared with that from people who live much closer to the area concerned.

What recent discussions he has held with his US counterparts concerning UK involvement in the proposed national missile defence system; and if he will make a statement. [24480]

I discussed missile defence with the US Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, and other NATO colleagues, most recently during the NATO Defence Ministers meetings on 18 December. I expect regular discussions on the subject to continue. I have consistently made it clear that we share US concerns about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, and that we will continue to work together to tackle the threat with a comprehensive strategy. But it remains the case that the US has not yet decided how it wishes to proceed with missile defence and has made no request for the use of facilities in the UK.

My right hon. Friend quite rightly drew attention to the dangers of proliferation of nuclear weapons. Does he accept that national missile defence, if introduced by the United States, would be a serious breach of the test ban treaty process and the nuclear disarmament process? Would it not be better if my right hon. Friend used his good offices to persuade the United States not to go ahead with this incredibly dangerous proliferation, and if he made it clear that no British facility whatever will be available for it?

I do not accept the way in which my hon. Friend puts his question. He will know, as other Members of Parliament do, that the United States continues to observe the terms of the anti-ballistic missile treaty, having given six months' notice of its withdrawal, as either signatory is perfectly entitled to do. I am sure that he would welcome the intention of the United States to reduce the number of operationally deployed warheads to between 1,700 and 2,200 as a valuable step forward. That of course is linked to its commitment to missile defence; that important reduction is a direct consequence of the extra security that it anticipates having once missile defence is fully deployed.

The events of 11 September showed graphically the lengths to which certain terrorist groups are prepared to go in an attempt to achieve their aims. Given the proliferation of long-range missiles, including among rogue states, does the Secretary of State agree that what happened on 11 September strengthens, not weakens, the case for ballistic missile defence?

Yes. The events of 11 September show that there are those who would seek to threaten the United States and its friends and allies by any means available. That could certainly include ballistic missiles, and we agree with the United States that there must be a comprehensive strategy to tackle all those threats.