If he will make a statement on progress towards the headline goal on European defence. [31891]

If he will make a statement on the outcome of the EU capability improvement conference of 19 to 20 November 2001. [31897]

First, I should like to convey a message of sympathy from Her Majesty's armed forces to Her Majesty the Queen, the Queen Mother and other members of the royal family on the death of Her Royal Highness Princess Margaret. Her Royal Highness took a close interest in the armed forces and had links with a number of units from all three services. She launched, and continued to take a close interest in, HMS Illustrious and HMS Norfolk. She was Colonel-in-Chief of the Light Dragoons, the Royal Highland Fusiliers and Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps, and royal honorary Air Commodore of Royal Air Force Coningsby. She will be greatly missed.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Does he agree that in the current international climate it is even more important to have a strong common European foreign policy, underpinned by strong common European defence structures? Does he agree, in particular, that in the light of President Bush's recent decision concerning $38 billion of additional defence expenditure, it is even more important to have effective co-operation on military spending among European countries?

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that we carry through the EU states' commitment to making capability improvements. Progress and effective co-ordination are needed to meet those commitments, not only by spending more money but by spending that money more wisely. Flexible and rapidly deployable troops are needed, whether for deployment by individual nations, by a NATO force or indeed by a European force. That is why identifying the shortfalls in Europe's military capabilities and addressing them on a collective basis mean that we will get more, collectively, for our defence spending.

May I associate myself and my hon. Friends with the Secretary of State's condolences on the loss of Princess Margaret?

The hon. Gentleman is right to the extent that the test of improvements must be improvements in military capability. That is why this Government have set so much store by the Helsinki headline goal process, and the test of its success will be whether it produces real improvements in military capabilities that can then be made available to NATO, to individual nations and to any collective European operation.

How do today's regiments of main battle tanks fit within the strategic concept that requires ease of transport, speed and flexibility?

Each country, individually and as part of its contribution to international forces, requires a range of military capabilities. My hon. Friend mentions one of those capabilities. It does not necessarily fit with the sort of rapid deployment exercise that has recently been conducted, but it certainly fitted entirely with the sort of conflict in which this country, with others, engaged at the time of the Gulf war. What is important when considering our range of military capabilities is that we do not simply respond to the lessons of the last conflict; we need to recognise that there may be circumstances in which we are faced with a different sort of conflict, and that we will need appropriate military capabilities to deal with that.

The armed forces will be grateful to the Secretary of State for conveying their sympathy on the death of Her Royal Highness Princess Margaret.

"I would not actually use the word overstretch at the present time."

We are using available resources to their maximum capability. We are using them extremely effectively, as the armed forces' record demonstrates, and we shall continue to do so. However, I made it clear that if the United Kingdom entered into significant new commitments, that would have implications for our operations elsewhere. I have consistently set that out to the House and to the hon. Gentleman. If he believes that we are overstretched already, he must say from which of the various commitments into which the UK Government have entered we should withdraw.

It was this Government who, in the strategic defence review, forced through cuts to the Territorial Army, for example. Now we hear that they are to reverse those cuts. Will the Secretary of State try to deny that Labour got it wrong in the SDR?

My recollection is that the hon. Gentleman welcomed the conclusions of the SDR and the way in which it set out Britain's military contribution to reflect our foreign policy commitments. He cannot have it both ways. He has to decide whether he believes that Britain should play its part in the world, and where, or whether we should have some curious defence and foreign policy that he has yet to articulate.

But we were already doing more than the SDR set out before 11 September. When the right hon. Gentleman took over as Defence Secretary in 1999, he said that overstretch

"essentially means asking our armed forces to do more than we originally contemplated at the time of the Strategic Defence Review."

"we have…to get back to the levels of service that we anticipated at the time of the SDR."

The hon. Gentleman repeats the point he has already made, and I again challenge him to respond as I invited him to. If he believes that Britain's armed forces are involved in too many commitments around the world, he must articulate from which commitments he would withdraw.

With the growing capability gap between the United States of America and Europe, which will almost certainly worsen given last week's budget announcements, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be a big mistake for Europe just to develop a peacekeeping capability and not be able to maintain a high-intensity warfare capability?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The United Kingdom will be at the forefront of that ability. We will not abandon our very considerable high-intensity warfare assets, and we will continue to develop and sustain them. Equally, the size of the United States' military budget and defence spending and the range of equipment that it has available demonstrate the importance of acting collectively. It is vital that Europe contribute to international missions and that that means working together to provide some of the capabilities that the United States already has.

The Secretary of State will of course have noticed that I am wearing the tie of the Light Dragoons. I thank him for and concur with his remarks on the Colonel-in-Chief of the Light Dragoons.

No, it does not. That decision is based not on any lack of commitment by our European partners, but on a sensible rationalisation of the arrangements that we have available to us in that international context.

Which European Governments are fully committed to building the A400M. [31892]

The commitment of the eight participating nations to the programme was demonstrated by the signature of the necessary intergovernmental agreements on 18 December 2001. However, those documents will not become effective until the German commitment has received Bundestag approval. As that approval process is not yet complete, partner nations are considering options for taking the programme forward, which include allowing Germany more time to secure its approvals.

I thank the Minister for that answer. Those of us who have a keen interest in the aerospace industry in the north-west were concerned about announcements that Germany was considering in some way pulling out of the project, and that even our own Government were looking elsewhere. To that end, will the Minister assure the House today that the industrial launch of that project will take place on or around 31 March? Also, what steps will he be taking to ensure that all partners continue to honour their obligations to the project? As he will appreciate, it would be foolish to use moneys that could be allocated to buying aircraft to pay penalty clauses.

That is a very good point. The programme is proceeding and we still expect it to be signed and delivered on time. Having said that, it is clear that it must await the approval of the Bundestag. We are working with our other partners in the scheme to ensure that.

I understand that we are committed to taking seven of these planes by 2010 and the full complement of 25 by 2014, which is half a generation away. Is there no way that we can bring forward the date of procurement of this military version of the airbus—that is what we are talking about—to fill the gap in the north-west and elsewhere, where orders for commercial aeroplanes have nosedived?

I am very well aware of the problems that we face, but one must be realistic. This is a major procurement project, and we have to be sure that we get it right. Much as I would like to bring the in-service date forward, I do not know that that would be achievable.

The A400M clearly underpins the deployability of any European force or, indeed, any NATO force. Will the Minister comment on the fact that it now seems likely that the NATO deployment in Macedonia will end following the elections and that a Euro-led commitment will take its place? Which headquarters will lead that, which nation will lead that, and which part of Britain's overstretched forces are likely to be involved?

Order. I would say to the hon. Gentleman that his question is far too wide.

If he will make a statement on the impact of the pensions trough on former armed forces personnel; and what measures he proposes to remedy anomalies. [31893]

I hope that I have better luck with this one.

Will the Minister forgive me for asking a disobliging question on a day when other aspects of armed forces' pensions are in the news? I hope that he will agree to meet me and the Forces Pension Society so that we can make him focus on a tremendous anomaly and unfairness. Two people can join the armed forces on the same day and achieve the same rank in the same time scale, but one can leave one week and get a higher pension than the other who stays on a little longer, sometimes at the request of the armed forces. We cannot put a high enough price on fairness; the arrangement is as demonstrably unfair as it is perverse, and I hope that the Minister will agree to my pinning him down on the table with the Forces Pension Society so that he can focus on that wrong that needs to be remedied.

My hon. Friend is rarely disobliging. I am due to meet the officers of the Forces Pension Society in the next week or two.

Not with me.

Should another meeting be necessary, I am of course happy to meet the society along with my hon. Friend. Again, while the arrangement may well be perceived as unfair by those in receipt of smaller pensions than they might have had, I can only reiterate that the policy of successive Governments is that we cannot revisit the issue.

May I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the remarks of the Secretary of State about Her Royal Highness Princess Margaret?

The Liberal party should pay; send the bill to Cowley street.

Indeed, if the blunder was a result of action by the Liberal Government, when refunds are paid, will they come from the Treasury, not Ministry of Defence coffers? Finally, if there has been a blunder, the only way in which people will know that the pensions of their fathers and grandfathers were correct will be for a full independent inquiry to be conducted. Will the Minister initiate such an inquiry today?

I suppose that this is the only opportunity that I shall have in my life to blame a Liberal Government for something.

While my hon. Friend is pinned to the table, will he listen to the representations of those who have served a decade or more in the armed forces and are in receipt of no pension whatever? Will he bear it in mind that that can hardly be a just way for our wider society to repay those who risked their lives for its defence?

As is the case with other public sector pensions prior to 1975, those who served for less than the prescribed time are not entitled to a pension. There is nothing new in that. There is no way that this Government—or, I suspect, any Government of any political hue—would be prepared to revisit that at this stage.

When we last discussed pensions in the House, the Minister kindly said that he would look again at the question of post-retirement marriages, where the officer concerned may have died after having married after the end of his period of service—often because the nature of his service encouraged that postponement—and the widow is not entitled to any pension at all. Has the hon. Gentleman had a chance to look into the matter, as he said he would, and if so, what are his initial thoughts on the subject?

The matter is still under discussion with my officials in the light of the pensions review that is taking place. However, it is most unlikely that any change that was brought in would be retrospective. That is not to say that some changes in the margins may not be made with regard to future holders of a pension.

On the substantive question before us, may I draw the Minister's attention to the answer given to me on 29 January by the Minister of State for Defence, his right hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), who stated that

"for the information of veterans organisations, we are looking to see whether it would be practical to give a broad estimate of the costs that might be involved for the major periods at issue"?—[Official Report, 29 January 2002; Vol. 379, c. 216W.]

It would appear that we have a problem. I believe that it is of no interest to those who are in receipt of a pension whether the mistake took place in 1952 or 1919. I do not believe that that is relevant, other than to the individual holders. We have given a guarantee that we will find all of them and pay them the money that they are due. The total sum that has been expended up till now is about £6.5 million, so clearly my estimate of £30 million was a generous one. I do not anticipate that it will take as much as that to cover the matter, but all those who are due the money will get it.

What discussions he has had with his (a) Russian and (b) European counterparts since the US Administration decision to withdraw from the ABMT; and if he will make a statement. [31894]

I last discussed missile defence with my European counterparts at the NATO Defence Ministers meetings on 18 December, and with the Russian Defence Minister, Sergei Ivanov, during his visit to London on 20 December. The future of the anti-ballistic missile treaty is essentially a bilateral issue for the United States and Russia. We welcome the fact that they are continuing to work together to establish a new strategic framework based on openness and mutual trust.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the difference in view between Europe and America comes about because American military strategists have placed too great an emphasis on the capabilities of their perceived enemies, and have not considered intentions or the fact that diplomacy can reduce the risk, whereas the Europeans look towards a more constructive engagement? When he next meets his American counterparts, will my right hon. Friend convey to them the European view and make it clear that although there is a place for smart bombs, smart diplomacy is much more important in creating world peace?

I do not accept my hon. Friend's over-neat division between a so-called European view and an American view, not least because President Bush has made it clear, for example, that he wants the United States' friends and allies to be protected against the ballistic missile threat. That implies that the distinction between Europe and the United States is not as my hon. Friend might suggest. Clearly, differences of emphasis exist, as they do between all members of NATO. Each country looks at these questions in the light of its national interest, as it should. Equally, I find that there is a remarkable unanimity of purpose among NATO allies when these issues are discussed.

The Secretary of State will recall that, 18 months ago, in response to a Foreign Affairs Committee report on weapons of mass destruction, the Government said that they believed in preserving the anti-ballistic missile treaty. Since then, the United States President has said officially that he will withdraw from that treaty. What is the Government's position now?

I have set out the Government's position, which is that this is essentially a matter for the United States and Russia. At the time of the Select Committee's report, the United Kingdom's position was that we saw some value in continuing the treaty. However, we recognise that it is up to the parties to the treaty to determine whether it has a role. What they have decided, which we very much welcome, is that there needs to be a new strategic framework, which the United States and Russia continue to discuss. We greatly welcomed and supported those discussions.

In October 2000, the Government said that they

"value the stability which the ABM treaty provides and wish to see it preserved".

I am sorry that my hon. Friend sees the world in such stark terms. Clearly, the world moves on and events require us to think through the policy implications of those changes. That is precisely what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary set out in his speech at King's college last week. He said that

"we have to be open to new thinking. And this spirit informs our approach to Missile Defence…This treaty was a product of its time…But the world has changed."

The Secretary of State says at one moment that the anti-ballistic missile treaty is purely a matter for the two Governments concerned. The next minute, when reminded by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge), he suddenly says, "Oh no. That is quite incorrect. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary changed that policy last week in his speech at King's college." However, the United States Defence Secretary, Mr. Rumsfeld, was asked at his daily press briefing on Friday:

"Do you have any reaction to the comments of Jack Straw?"

"Oh, I know who he is."

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman appears to know the name of his leader.

If he will make a statement on the number of UK jobs sustained through MOD procurement. [31896]

The number of UK jobs sustained through Ministry of Defence procurement for equipment and services has been estimated at 255,000. That includes the numbers employed directly in UK industry on MOD contracts and those employed indirectly through the supply chain—that is, subcontractors and others who supply the main contractor.

I recognise how important UK manufacturing is to defence, but can we ensure that contracts are sustained and that UK contractors have easy access to them? I am thinking of the truck industry in central Lancashire, which is dependent on such contracts, as well as Royal Ordnance at Chorley, which has security of supply, and many others in the aerospace industry.

It is our duty to obtain value for money from procurement spending. As the biggest single customer of the UK industry, the MOD has a continuing interest in ensuring that its supplier base, which includes specialist defence companies and general companies in most industrial sectors, is efficient and competitive and enables the achievement of maximum value for money in defence procurement. However, value for money is never just about price; other considerations are taken into account.

May I begin by associating my party with the Secretary of State's comments on the death of Princess Margaret?

I thank the hon. Gentleman, who speaks for the Scottish National party, for unintentionally promoting me, but alas, I am still an Under-Secretary, not a Minister of State.

As my hon. Friend has said, work has been brought to the Clyde through the type 45. Will he join me in congratulating the taskforce on its efforts to secure employment for those on the Clyde who unfortunately became unemployed? Can he also explain why the contracts for the type 45 have yet to be signed?

I can certainly say that the Clyde shipyard's taskforce has made a useful contribution to the debate on the Clyde's future. I can assure my hon. Friend that the contracts for the first six type 45 destroyers are still being negotiated. Placements are due shortly and the programme is on time.

The Minister is aware from his recent and welcome visits to my constituency that it has a large military involvement. On procurement issues, he is also aware that there is considerable concern about the demolition of previous Army barracks. Will he meet me and a delegation of my constituents, who are worried about certain procurement decisions relating to the choice of demolition contractors for some of those projects?

I am certainly prepared to take an interest in that matter. If the hon. Gentleman writes to me with the details, I shall be happy to contact him.

Is the Minister aware that the average age of a skilled worker on the Tyne is 50? If we are to save the shipyards as a strategic asset for the UK, we need to put MOD orders in UK yards. Will he confirm that that will be the policy, and assure us that he will not revert to the stupid policy that put £400 million of taxpayers' money and hundreds of shipyard workers' jobs into Germany?

I can assure my hon. Friend that I am well aware of the problems regarding skilled labour. In common with long-standing defence policy, all warships will be constructed in this country.

What recent discussions he has had with his US counterpart on the likely timing of a request to use UK facilities in respect of national missile defence. [31898]

I regularly discuss missile defence with my United States counterpart. The US Administration have not yet decided what type of missile defence system they will seek to deploy, or when. We have received no request from the US for the use of sites in the United Kingdom for missile defence purposes, nor any indication of when any such request might be made.

Does my right hon. Friend think that the decision to abrogate the ABM treaty is likely to increase or decrease the likelihood of other countries adhering to their international agreements? Does he have any evidence that China has already adjusted its defence policy in response to the national missile defence programme?

There is a proper procedure within the terms of the ABM treaty for either party to withdraw. The United States has invoked that procedure and has therefore remained within the terms of the treaty in that respect. It follows that, by consistently observing the terms of the international treaty, no particular message should be sent to any other country as to its action in respect of existing treaties.

Have the discussions that the Secretary of State has had with our American partners extended to improvements to the facilities at Fylingdales? In what circumstances was the extensive new work started without planning permission, and who was responsible?

Given the events of 11 September, I judged it important that there should be an improvement in the level of security at the sensitive facilities at Fylingdales. I regret that the urgency of the work meant that formal planning permission was not sought. That matter has been put in hand and we are in discussion with the appropriate planning authorities. I hope that the House will recognise that in the light of events on 11 September, it was right that we should take urgent action to ensure that there was proper security at the base.

Did my right hon. Friend's discussions include consideration of the danger posed for nuclear proliferation by the 60,000 scientists from the former Soviet Union who have expert knowledge of weapons of mass destruction? Is he aware that many of those scientists are being approached by countries such as Iran and Iraq, which wish to develop their own nuclear arsenals?

My hon. Friend raises a real concern and a real means by which nuclear weapons could proliferate throughout the world. Much concern has been expressed by several countries about the problem. It is something that we shall continue to highlight.

Does the Secretary of State agree with the American President, who said in his state of the union address that missile defences were an essential protection against an axis of evil, or does he agree with the 218 Labour Members who signed a motion against missile defence?

We certainly understand why the United States is concerned about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and why the US should wish to take effective action to deal with that. As I indicated to the House earlier, the Government's view is that missile defence may have a significant role to play in the context of preventing and dealing with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

As it would seem that my right hon. Friend's American counterpart cannot give him any direct information on whether there will be a national missile defence system or whether it will work, how can President Bush's promise to defend this country and Europe by means of NMD be brought into play? A sizeable body of scientific opinion and many military strategists believe—unlike the chocolate soldiers sitting on the Conservative Benches—that no such scheme could ever work and that, far from defending this country, it would place us in the front line of terrorist action.

All I can say to my hon. Friend is that there is a significant and very well-funded programme in the United States for developing missile defence. That programme is at an early stage in its development, and I will not make any comments on its technical success at this stage, except to say that I am confident that the United States will deliver the system when it is ready to do so.

If he will make a statement on the resources available to meet the commitments of the UK armed forces on active deployment overseas. [31899]

The net additional costs of meeting the UK armed forces' commitments on active deployment overseas are met either from the Ministry of Defence's share of the Government's conflict prevention budget or through a claim on the reserve. The costs of most of these operations are reported to Parliament in the normal way, and we hope to be in a position to announce shortly the total estimated costs this financial year for the operations in Afghanistan.

What is the current total trained strength of the armed forces? Will that increase or decrease this year?

I will provide the hon. Gentleman with the full figure in writing—

That is what I am asking for now.

I appreciate that. I will provide the details in writing, because the figures are very precise and I do not carry those three sets of precise figures in my head. The figure for the Army is more than 100,000, which we hope to raise to 103,000 or 104,000 by 2005. Similar projections are being made for the Navy and for the Royal Air Force, based on the type of recruitment and retention programmes that are being put in place, with which I hope that the hon. Gentleman would agree.

What are the latest trends in retention?

Upwards.

Further to the comments by the Secretary of State over the weekend about UK armed forces being stretched to the limit, will the Minister tell us by when his Department's bid to the Treasury for the next round of the comprehensive spending review will have to be submitted? Will he assure us, in the light of the Secretary of State's comments, that the bid will be for a significant real increase in UK defence resources?

With reference to earlier questions, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is a long time since the Liberals have been in power. I am sure that he will understand that these issues are a matter for negotiation between Departments, and that the allocation of resources has to be made across the whole of the Government's spending profile. Those discussions are proceeding, and when a decision is taken, it will be announced.

If he will make a statement on troop deployments in Sierra Leone. [31900]

As reported to the House on 18 December 2001, we are maintaining our current military presence in Sierra Leone of some 360 shore-based personnel over the period of the presidential and parliamentary elections scheduled for May 2002. We are making good progress towards our goal of helping to develop professional, accountable and effective Republic of Sierra Leone armed forces, which will be able to protect the security and integrity of Sierra Leone on their own. The international military advisory and training team will continue the task of developing the capacity of the Sierra Leone armed forces over the longer term.

Bearing in mind that answer, what assessment has the Minister made of the likelihood of the Sierra Leone Army regaining control of the diamond mines, which are crucial to the security of Sierra Leone and of the neighbouring countries?

Clearly, we want to ensure that there are perfectly capable Sierra Leone armed forces through presidential and parliamentary elections, which, as I said, are scheduled for May 2002. A sizeable international force of 17,500 troops in UNAMSIL remains in Sierra Leone. Gaining control of the territory in Sierra Leone remains the objective.

Will the Minister acknowledge the important and impressive role that the Chinook fleet, based in Odiham in my constituency, played last year in extraction from Sierra Leone? Does he accept that it is not good for the morale of such a fine fighting force to accuse pilots who die in the service of their country of gross negligence when no evidence exists to support that accusation?

I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has changed his position on that. If my memory serves me correctly, he was a Defence Minister who authorised and approved the earlier examination. Perhaps he was not in office at that precise time, but he would have examined all the material that related to the incident to which he refers. As he knows, the other place has provided a detailed and comprehensive report, which we are currently examining. Of course, the Chinook fleet is carrying out an important and extensive role on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.

What was the outcome of the Skyguard test at Minehead last year. [31902]

A Skyguard mobile tracking unit was deployed to a location at Dunster beach near Minehead, Somerset from 4 to 7 December to undertake covert monitoring of military low-flying aircraft, recording their heights and speeds. During the observation period, a total of 43 military aircraft were monitored; none was found to be in breach of regulations.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he cast his mind back a little further, before Skyguard came to Dunster beach? There was low flying over the nuclear power station at Hinckley Point, which, as the hon. Gentleman can imagine, caused enormous consternation in my constituency. Although the aircraft was just above the legal height, the Skyguard did much to reassure people that the Ministry of Defence was taking low-flying aircraft seriously. There is a large military installation in my constituency that shares the worries. In the height of a crisis, could Skyguard be used not only to reassure people, but to give warning of low-flying aircraft over important installations in the United Kingdom?

I am well aware of people's anxieties when aircraft approach sensitive installations. Clear rules govern that. I found the Skyguard system useful. It is done covertly; no one is told of it in advance apart from local Members of Parliament who always ensure that the matter is kept out of the public eye. I have been struck by how seldom infringements of the rules occur. Our pilots act responsibly. Although I appreciate that low flying is a great burden, we do what we can to spread it and minimise the load. However, the current system ensures that we carefully monitor what happens and that rules are kept and not broken.

What plans he has to visit Pakistan to discuss regional security; and if he will make a statement. [31903]

I visited Pakistan on 5 and 6 February. During my visit I had meetings with President Musharraf and senior figures in the Ministry of Defence.

I am grateful for that reply. A significant number of my constituents have family and friends in Pakistan and India. They are deeply concerned about the rise in tension between those two states, and they look to Britain to continue to help and for measures to reduce the tension. Did my right hon. Friend receive specific assurances on his visit to Pakistan that there would be an attempt to resolve the differences between India and Pakistan by negotiation rather than by other means? Will he also tell hon. Members whether he envisages a bilateral defence arrangement, which would help to reduce tensions between the two nations?

I was left in no doubt of Pakistan's recognition of the need to take action against terrorist organisations operating from its territory. We welcome President Musharraf's speech of 12 January, and the action that he has taken since. We have long called for an end to externally supported terrorism in Kashmir, and we are doing all we can to see the job completed. Meanwhile, we have urged both countries to continue to give time for the diplomatic route to work. As friends of both India and Pakistan, we will continue to urge them to persevere with dialogue and address all issues outstanding between them. It is clear that violence and terrorism will not bring a solution in Kashmir, but I am grateful for my hon. Friend's recognition that defence relations may help to do so.

There used to be close links between the British and the Pakistani armed forces, including exchanges between staff colleges. I understand that those links were stopped after the Pakistani nuclear tests. Have those links been reinstated, or are there plans to do so? What further assistance can British troops and training teams give to the Pakistanis in their fight against international terrorism?

I anticipate that the meeting of the defence co-operation forum will lead to a framework for co-operation and contacts involving all three armed services. In addition, further contacts will include ships and other military visits, Pakistani access to United Kingdom military training opportunities, participation in bilateral exercises and visits by senior military and civilian defence officials.

If he will make a statement on the recent activities of UK forces in Kosovo. [31904]

The United Kingdom currently contributes some 3,000 personnel to KFOR operations in Kosovo as framework nation of the multinational brigade centre. UK forces take part in the full range of tasks carried out by KFOR. KFOR's main focus is the provision of a safe and secure environment in Kosovo, including the protection of minority communities and the countering of threats from extremist groups.

Attention is rightly focused on Afghanistan, but will the Minister congratulate our troops serving with KFOR? Will he ensure that the prospect of a spell in Kosovo does not become detrimental to the retention of the young men and women serving in our forces?

I would be only too happy to associate myself with my hon. Friend's views, and congratulate our forces on their very important work not just in Kosovo, but in all the other areas in which they are deployed internationally. I assure him that the expertise and knowledge gained on those deployments usually stand members of the armed forces in good stead for their future prospects in the service.

Which other countries are likely to be heavily involved in the peacekeeping mission in Kosovo? We hear much about the UK's involvement, but I would be interested to know which of our European partners are playing an equal role.

To give due justice to that question, it is better that I set out in detail all the individual nations that participate and all the contributions they make. The international effort in Kosovo is considerable: there are in the region of 42,000 troops in KFOR, 37,000 of whom are based in Kosovo. I shall provide the hon. Gentleman with a detailed breakdown of those deployments, which I shall place in the Library of the House.

What action he is taking to recruit and retain soldiers to ensure that the Army is at its full complement. [31906]

The problem of recruitment and retention across the services is being tackled as a matter of the highest priority. Our aim is to maintain high levels of recruitment and retention through policies that meet our requirements and genuinely reflect the priorities of our people and their families.

Will the Minister confirm that on 1 May 1997 the shortfall in the British Army was 4,933, and that the latest figures published on 1 December 2001 show that the shortfall is now 6,169? By any stretch of the imagination, that is an increase in the shortfall. Does he accept that the Government's policies on retention in and recruitment to the British Army have failed, and that that is adding to the problem of overstretch of our troops? I draw attention in particular to the troops based in my Colchester constituency.

It would be wrong to deny that we face difficulties. That is why we have introduced an extensive welfare package which is constantly reviewed, and which is intended to deal with retention in the best possible way. As for recruitment, I could spend the next hour describing in detail all the ways in which we have tried to tackle it. If the hon. Gentleman is truly concerned, however, I suggest he should begin to appreciate the complexities and difficulties, and support the Government's initiatives rather than trying to talk down the armed forces.

I wish to present a petition about the use and abuse of fireworks.

To the House of Commons

The Petition of Brenda Elvidge and Others

Declares that the exploding of fireworks to celebrate the demise of Guy Fawkes and other national celebrations such as New Year's Eve now extend by several days and even weeks both before and after the named event and that the fireworks sold for household use (which are also illegally exploded in the streets) are now louder, last longer and have a greater aerial range than previously, thus causing great distress and trauma to a multitude of domestic, wild and farm animals over a prolonged period, resulting in the need for veterinary care and the administration of tranquillisers.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons shall urge the Home Office that the welfare and safety of all animals be considered whenever and wherever fireworks are exploded and to achieve this the House of Commons shall legislate for the period when fireworks are to be sold and to rework The Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997 (SI 1997 No 2294) and legislate for the type of firework available to unlicensed individuals and to limit the number of days that these fireworks may be exploded to two named days per national celebration and that the length of each display not exceed 2 hours.

And the petitioners remain etc.