If he will make a statement on the impact on the north-west of planned MOD procurement projects. [40897]

The north-west was successful in winning defence business worth about £1.2 billion in 1998–99—some 14.5 per cent. of total defence equipment expenditure—sustaining in the process an estimated 11,000 jobs. The current equipment programme offers significant opportunities, such as the joint strike fighter and the future carrier, for companies in the north-west to compete to sustain that level of business.

I welcome my hon. Friend's answer. What consideration is he giving to the important contract for which Leyland Trucks is tendering, involving an important part of supply to the armed forces? The company has held the contract in the past and it is coming up for renewal. What support can he offer for the thousands of jobs that depend on it?

I am well aware that Leyland Trucks Ltd. is one of five companies invited to tender for the role of prime contractor for the supply of approximately 8,500 support vehicles over a 10-year period that is planned to start in late 2004. It is too early to give an indication of the specific industrial implications of the planned programme, but there will certainly be opportunities for subcontractors at least in the north-west.

May I point out to the Minister the cuts in defence announced by the Government since the last defence questions? They scrapped HMS Fearless nearly nine months early, so there will be no assault ship in the British Navy until the end of 2003. They scrapped HMS Sheffield, which was due to remain in service until 2012. They scrapped the Navy's Sea Harriers, which were due to remain in service until 2015. Those announcements followed the decision to scrap 5 Squadron—the Tornado fighters due to remain in service until the deployment of the Eurofighter.

Order. Some of those delays or cancellations should have taken place in the north-west.

I regret that the list is long, Mr. Speaker, but how can the Minister give any assurances to manufacturers in the north-west until he has the money that the Treasury has so far refused him? Or is it to be cuts, cuts and more cuts in defence under this Government?

I suppose that I should have started by requesting your permission to make a statement, Mr. Speaker. However, I shall attempt to make my answer rather shorter.

If he will make a statement on steps to improve the relationship between Russia and NATO. [40898]

The United Kingdom has taken a leading role in encouraging a step change in NATO's relationship with Russia. A confident and co-operative partnership between the allies and Russia, based on shared democratic values and the shared commitment to a stable, peaceful and undivided Europe is essential for stability and security in the Euro-Atlantic area. The alliance and Russia are working towards the creation of a new NATO-Russia council to identify and pursue opportunities for joint action at 20. NATO will maintain its prerogative of independent decision and action at 19 on the alliance's fundamental objectives.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he outline some of the more practical measures to encourage joint working between Russia and NATO on issues of mutual interest?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her interest in this important subject. We are keen to develop the relationship with Russia as an essential further element of building stability and security in the Euro-Atlantic area. The practical measures that we have in mind include co-operation against terrorism, dealing with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, peace support operations and new threats. Those are areas where NATO can seek to deepen its involvement with Russia immediately.

My question relates to the NATO-Russian council. Given the sensitivity of new members from eastern Europe that are now part of the alliance, will the Secretary of State confirm that he sees no danger of possible conflict between the existing North Atlantic Council and the NATO-Russian council? What is the Government's position on the council's remit?

There cannot be a conflict because the existing council will have to agree to any areas of deeper consultation with Russia.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's reply and the fact that NATO and Russia will work much more closely together, but can he assure the House that that closer relationship will not have any bearing whatever on the decision to enlarge NATO at the Prague summit?

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Having recently visited three of the candidate countries where that issue is obviously extremely important and sensitive, I assure him and the House that there will be no relationship between the two issues.

I, too, welcome what the Secretary of State has said about improved relations between NATO and Russia, but, following on from the question asked by the hon. Member for Vale of (Glamorgan (Mr. Smith), can he tell the House whether that improvement is, in effect, dependent on the expansion of NATO? What happens at Prague will be an important test for NATO's relationship with Russia, so does he agree that any proposed enlargement of NATO presents no threat to Russia? Are Her Majesty's Government supporting all the applicant countries, especially the three Baltic states?

Working backwards on those questions, no decision has yet been taken by Her Majesty's Government on which of the candidates should be offered an invitation. As I have said already, there is no relationship between this issue and enlargement. Although this is clearly also subject to the views of allies, it is certainly the preferred view of Her Majesty's Government that this matter should proceed quickly—that is, before enlargement is resolved.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that one of the bodies working for a closer understanding between NATO and Russia is the NATO Parliamentary Assembly? Indeed, the largest-ever conference and seminar between NATO parliamentarians and Russian elected representatives will take place in Moscow later this week. Does he agree that Russia is apparently growing towards a feeling that it is in its own interest to be surrounded by prosperous and democratic countries and that, if the Baltic states wish to join NATO and that wish is accepted, NATO could even play some part in improving the situation in the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad?

I pay tribute to the work conducted by the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. It is important to have a range of contacts at every level between the democratic elements of Russia and allies in NATO, and I am delighted that that process continues. Having recently visited the Baltic states, and having discussed Kaliningrad at length, I recognise that there are issues, but that they can be resolved—if the House accepts this—not necessarily in the context of NATO, but certainly in that of the European Union and the free movement that the EU requires of member states. However, I was assured that that issue was being regularly discussed and that it presented no difficulty whatever to the accession of the Baltic states to NATO or, indeed, the EU.

What progress has been made in reaching full manning levels in the RAF; and if he will make a statement. [40899]

If he will make a statement on trends in manning levels of regular forces since 1997. [40901]

At 1 May 1997, the deficit for the Royal Air Force stood at 4.8 per cent. At 1 February 2002, that deficit was 2.4 per cent. By any standard, that is good progress. Turning to trends overall, there continues to be a shortfall in trained strength against trained requirement. However, I am pleased to report that, across the services overall, recruitment is favourable and retention is holding steady.

I thank the Minister for that answer, but perhaps the raw figures should be considered instead of the percentages, and they show that the RAF was short of 1,149 personnel in January. Is he aware of the widespread concern that the Government plan to reduce the shortfall between actual and total manning strength by closing bases and scrapping squadrons, rather than by improving recruitment and retention? What assurance can he give to the many thousands of my constituents who work at or around the RAF base at Brize Norton that the Government will make an effort with recruitment and retention, rather than closing the squadrons in which they serve?

I am surprised at such criticism from the hon. Gentleman about the RAF base in his constituency. In the past few weeks, we have made a major announcement that will have a significant impact at Brize Norton. Clearly, we have to ensure that all our recruitment and retention strategies are as well focused as possible. He will be aware of the significant effort that is put into that, particularly in relation to RAF aircrew retention packages, about which a major announcement was made on an improved enhancement structure. We are conscious of all those issues and considerable effort will continue to be made to ensure that we not only retain our skilled crews, but recruit people into the RAF.

Overstretch and undermanning seem to be the most serious problems. We know that the Army is 8,000 under strength and will perhaps only reach full manning by 2008, yet we are taking on new commitments daily. What new initiatives do the Government have to recruit more troops now?

Again, we recently announced a significant uplift in the remuneration package for the services. Having said that, part of the assessment of how we intend to encourage people to join the forces is not necessarily based on remuneration. There are many other pulls and draws to encourage people to join the different services, including the Army. A wide range of initiatives is in place, including the remuneration and operational welfare packages. We are also considering how to deal with family welfare. The taskforce that I chair, which goes across Government, is examining ways to improve on some of the stresses and strains experienced by service families. As I said, recruitment is doing well in current circumstances with a significant increase in Army strength of 800 in the past six months alone.

In light of the changing nature of the threat facing us, what consideration has my right hon. Friend given to stationing regular forces in different parts of the country, such as the north-west, which is a major recruiting ground for the armed forces?

That is one issue that we need to address. It is important to consider the imbalance throughout the country in terms of the footprint of where bases are located. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is on record as saying that the problem needs to be tackled. The focus has been on the south-east for a variety of historical reasons. As we rationalise and improve the focus of some of our basing activities, we are considering how to improve that footprint across the whole country, including the north-west.

I share some of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) on recruitment. South Tyneside has traditionally been a great area for armed forces recruitment. Is the Minister aware that there were 826 recruits from the region in 1997 and 902 in 1999, but that last year the figure plummeted to 420? Is that because youngsters think that they are more likely to be shot in Baghdad or Kabul, or is there a budgetary crisis? If there is not a budgetary crisis, will the Minister work with the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to discover why recruitment is so low?

It is for neither of those reasons. People who serve in our armed forces do so with great pride. They recognise that they may have to make the ultimate sacrifice in defence of their country, and they do so. I said that overall Army strength has increased by 800 in the past six months alone. Substantial recruitment is taking place in some parts of the country, although we are not doing so well in other areas. That is why we are involved in various initiatives to discover why there is a recruitment shortfall in some areas and, if recruitment has dropped off, why. We also want to know what additional commitment we could make to particular areas to increase the levels to at least what they were before. I referred earlier to the range of initiatives in place to encourage people in the north-east to join all parts of the armed forces, not just the Army.

The Minister is putting what could be described as either a brave face or a complacent face on an extremely worrying situation. The truth of the matter is that we are short of 131 pilots in the RAF, 8,000 soldiers and hundreds of people in the Royal Navy. We simply do not have enough soldiers, sailors and airmen to carry out the difficult tasks that they already have, and the statement this afternoon by the Secretary of State may, for all we know, add more tasks to that list. When does the Minister intend that all three services should be fully manned? Will he put his job on the line and guarantee that they will be fully manned so that they can carry out their difficult tasks?

It would be a brave Minister who put his job on the line over such a question. I have indicated the range of initiatives that we are taking. We could spend considerable time looking at some of the RAF's problems with the training of pilots and at the reasons for the shortfall, which goes back several years to when the hon. Gentleman's party was in power. There was great demoralisation in the 1990s. This party addressed that in 1997, and we have given greater focus to the armed services. We have now embarked on major procurement strategies to lift the quality of equipment, some of which is inadequate for the job. We inherited that problem too, and we are having to address it, so any criticism from Opposition Members is grossly misplaced.

Order.

At RAF Stafford, there are more civilian workers than services personnel. Will my right hon. Friend keep a watchful eye out for opportunities to base more service personnel at Stafford? Will he acknowledge the tremendous contribution of the civilian work force, who enable our services to complete their full range of duties?

The civilian staff, who number about 100,000, against an overall strength of about 200,000, clearly make a major commitment to the wide range of services that our armed forces are called on to deliver. I pay tribute to all who serve, either in the armed forces or in support of them, and to their efforts, especially when our forces are deployed in the dangerous circumstances that apply in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world.

If he will make a statement on troop deployments in Afghanistan. [40900]

Around 1,600 United Kingdom service personnel are currently deployed with the international security assistance force in Kabul. I will make a statement to the House later today on our plans for future deployments.

Given the difficult security situation, which is likely to continue for some time, and the desire of the Afghan Government and their people for troops to remain in Afghanistan for a protracted period, does the Secretary of State foresee an extension to the deployment beyond July? Will British troops be part of that? What will trigger a withdrawal?

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the current United Nations mandate is scheduled to last only until June. However, I would be being less than honest with the House if I did not anticipate an extension. It is a matter for the UN, but any reasonable person looking at the situation in Afghanistan would have to say that there was a likelihood—I put it no stronger than that—of the UN wanting to extend the mandate. Obviously, any British participation will be contingent on the situation of our armed forces at the time, and on whether we feel that we can make a contribution to what will still, I am sure, as the hon. Gentleman has conceded, be a dangerous, difficult situation.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that it is reported that President Bush said last week that there is no place for politics in fighting the war. Does my right hon. Friend agree that politics is integral to fighting the war against terrorism because it ensures that military action is directed towards justice and not revenge? In that context, does he agree that there should be no extension of hostilities towards Iraq, and that an attack on Iraq should not be countenanced without further authorisation—

Order. The subject is Afghanistan.

The Secretary of State will recall that when he made his statement to the House three months ago announcing the original deployment, he intimated fairly strongly that, with the exception of headquarters troops, three months would be the maximum period. We are now told that it will be six months, and he has just intimated that it could be even longer. When will the Ministry of Defence take effective action to make sure that other European partners bear a fair share of the burden, because our armed forces are overstretched enough as it is?

I apologise to the House and to the hon. Gentleman if I gave him that impression. If he reads my comments more carefully, I am sure that he will see that I did not commit the United Kingdom's armed forces to anything at all. I indicated the importance of considering the situation at the time. If he had to deal with those situations, I am sure that, being fair-minded and reasonable, he would come to precisely the same conclusion.

Would the Secretary of State consider visiting Royal Marine headquarters in Portsmouth in my constituency to pass on the nation's grateful thanks for what the Royal Marines are doing, with our special services, in Afghanistan? Their contribution is unheralded and unpublicised, but efficient and very effective.

I will certainly be willing to do that. I am sure that if my hon. Friend has the time to stay for my statement to the House later, he will learn still more about the plans for the Royal Marines.

If he will make a statement on the role played by his Department in the promotion of arms exports. [40902]

The Defence Export Services Organisation, within the Ministry of Defence, is responsible for co-ordinating Government support to industry in promoting legitimate defence exports. Other areas within the Department provide assistance as required.

Is the Minister aware of the work done by senior economists in his Department, as well as by independent academics, that suggests that the economic benefits of such export sales are negative? In particular, is he aware of the York study's conclusion that if arms exports were cut by half within the life of a Parliament, the national income would be unchanged, and there would be a net gain of jobs from civil redeployment? In view of that, why are the Government promoting arms exports in highly inflamed situations, such as with the export of Hawks to the Indian subcontinent?

An independent study by two leading academic economists and two MOD economists into the economic costs and benefits of defence exports was published on 11 December last year. The Government broadly agree with its findings. It concluded that, rather than being subsidised, defence exports represented a significant net benefit to Government and to the UK economy more broadly. The study reported that defence export sales averaged about £6 billion in 1998 and 1999, and supported almost 100,000 jobs, many of which are high-quality jobs in cutting-edge industry. Its conclusions suggested that the ending of defence exports from the UK would involve a one-off adjustment cost of between £4 billion and £5 billion, which is equivalent to about 0.5 per cent. of one year's gross domestic product. In addition, there would be a continuous net cost to Government of between £90 million and £200 million.

:If he will make a statement on progress in multinational defence co-operation in Europe. [40903]

Both the NATO defence capabilities initiative and the European capabilities action plan encourage nations to co-ordinate their efforts and work together in enhancing military capabilities.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his reply. Anyone except the most fanatical of Europhobes would accept that progress in this area is valuable. Can he give further concrete examples of projects on which we work with our European allies, and of the impact on our defence capability?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his interest in this subject. As he indicates, this is hardly an area where there ought to be any kind of criticism at all. By improving our joint capabilities, we are clearly enhancing the ability of European nations to contribute not only to their own defence but equally to the defence of others through the NATO alliance. One practical example is our work with Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden to develop a Nordic brigade under the Nordic co-ordinated arrangement for military peace support. I shall attend the conference of NORDCAPS Ministers in April.

Does the Secretary of State recall the advice that his office gave to No. 10's foreign policy adviser that, if an EU-led force goes into Macedonia at this stage,

"the fledgling European Security and Defence Policy mechanism is not ready to undertake an operation of this magnitude and risk".

"An EU-led operation in Macedonia would not be 'premature' but simply wrong."

"if we do look like becoming isolated, we would do better to accept an EU mission".

Of course, there are never any disagreements between different Departments, or between hon. Members. However, I have to note the exception to my earlier comments about Members taking a sensible view of European initiatives.

I remind my right hon. Friend that the regular forces at Faslane in my constituency will, as ever, wish to play their part in the multilateral defence force. However, the need for harmony at the naval base is important and the concerns of the civilian work force should also be considered. He knows that my colleagues from Portsmouth, Plymouth and Rosyth have been pressing the case for the civilian work force in the naval warship modernisation programme. Does he recognise the loyalty and the commitment that the work force have shown and accept that the status quo is not an option? Will he allow them to play their full part in any proposals regarding multilateral defence force co-operation?

My hon. Friend and I have had regular discussions about the excellent work conducted at the Ministry of Defence naval yards. He and I recognise that the working arrangements and practices of those places cannot remain at a standstill, and I pay tribute to the work force's efforts to try to find new ways of organising their work. The Government have yet to take a decision about how the matter will go forward, but I assure him that we will take fully into account the views of the work force concerned.

May I point out to the Secretary of State that the document quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) was an account of the military advice that had been given? It said:

"Military advice is that the fledgling European Security and Defence Policy mechanism is not ready to undertake an operation of this magnitude and risk … There would be a real risk that the EU's first mission would end in failure".

Before the hon. Gentleman asks questions of that kind, he should read the text of the Barcelona summit statements. It says that it will allow the EU to make decisions later in the year on the basis of military advice.

I put it to the Secretary of State that we have the military advice already. Besides, the Government have always given the assurance, in the words of the Prime Minister, that

"European defence would operate only when NATO chooses not to be engaged".—[Official Report, 11 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 349.]

Again, all I can do is refer the hon. Gentleman to the details of what was agreed. He is trying very hard to suggest that something other than what was actually agreed was decided upon. However, if he looks very carefully, he will see that the EU said that it could take decisions later in the year on the basis of military advice. That seems to me to be a wholly sensible, practical reaction to the very difficult situation in Macedonia. Had he read the text carefully, I would have thought that he would have strongly supported that view.

The Secretary of State mentioned the importance of the amphibious capabilities of the United Kingdom and its co-operating allies. Naval capacity is fundamental to that, so when will the two new carriers, HMS Bulwark and HMS Albion, enter service? Given that there is only one bespoke helicopter carrier—HMS Ocean—has any thought been given to permanently converting one of the old carriers for rotary-wing use in the way that one was deployed recently?

The timetable for procurement is proceeding according to previous announcements; there has been no change to it. We certainly look consistently at the range of capabilities, including platforms required for military operations. However, I am entirely confident that the present plans and proposals meet the needs of the United Kingdom, as expressed in the strategic defence review and as part of the work currently being conducted in response to the appalling events of 11 September.

What his policy is on the Territorial Army. [40904]

The strategic defence review concluded that the main role of the Territorial Army should be to provide an essential reinforcement for its Regular Army counterparts when deployed on operations. In keeping with that, both volunteer and regular reservists have contributed significantly to operations at home and overseas in recent times.

I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he now admit that it was a catastrophic mistake by the Government since coming to power in 1997 to slash the Territorial Army by more than 18,000 men? Now that it has 2,000 fewer members than his own target of 41,000, how does he expect the hard-pressed TA to cope with the additional responsibility of homeland defence?

The cut in TA numbers was entirely appropriate, given the end of the cold war and the reconfiguration of reserve forces.

The Secretary of State said it was a mistake.

No, it was not mistake. To put the record straight, the Secretary of State said that initial assumptions involved a much larger cut than the one that was in fact made; the number of reserves therefore remains much higher than might otherwise have been the case—[Interruption.] I am sorry to have to point out to the Opposition that the cold war ended some years ago and that armed forces, even reserves, configured for the cold war have no relevance whatsoever to the situation in which we find ourselves. Reserve forces today are appropriately trained and are of an appropriate number to handle the many tasks that we give them as forces much closer to the regulars than they ever were under the previous Administration.

Uncharacteristically, that was a less than frank answer from the Minister. It may have escaped his notice that the previous Administration made a serious cut in TA numbers at the end of the cold war; the cut made by the hon. Gentleman's Government was indeed a cut too far. Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Gentleman wrote me a letter on 4 March in which he said, in reply to a parliamentary question, that he was unable to provide the

"strength and establishment of the TA by unit and location"

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are well aware of the structure, function and roles of the TA. The fact that it may be inappropriate to provide a reply on the grounds of cost is well recognised in the civil service; the answer that the hon. Gentleman received was no exception to that. I point out again that our TA forces today are better trained, have higher morale and are far more appropriate than they ever were under any Administration to whom the hon. Gentleman belonged.

I have to say that it is perfectly clear from the Minister's answer that the Government are in a shambles when it comes to our reserve forces. Not only is he out of step with his Secretary of State, who at least had the courtesy to acknowledge that we were right all along in warning that drastic cuts to the TA would damage our armed forces, but he was unable to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) where those reserve forces are located. It is high time that the Government answered the question that my hon. Friend put to the Minister. Will the Minister tell us when the cuts will be reversed, and give the House an assurance that any extension of TA responsibilities to homeland defence will not be at the expense of its valuable role reinforcing our regular troops?

I suppose that, by convention, I must welcome the hon. Gentleman to his position on the Opposition Front Bench. I hope that, during future questions, he will perhaps he better informed than he is just now. Let there be no doubt—I am well aware of where our units are and of what they comprise. It is hardly surprising that I am unaware of the exact numbers in each unit, given the amount of work that we in the Ministry of Defence have to do.

What progress has been made in advancing United Kingdom participation in the joint strike fighter project since the selection of Lockheed Martin as a contractor. [40905]

A number of UK companies are already closely involved with the joint strike fighter project as part of the Lockheed Martin team. Work is in progress on arrangements for placing lower-tier contracts, for which a range of UK companies are expected to tender. The Ministry of Defence is facilitating such involvement, and earlier this month it hosted a well-attended briefing day for industry.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer; Members on both sides of the House will doubtless welcome news about progress on the joint strike fighter project. However, may I ask him a very blunt question? What does that news mean for jobs in this country, and for manufacturing and engineering jobs in the west midlands in particular?

I am very well aware of the valuable contribution made by west midlands companies to our effort and procurement. The Government's decision to participate in the joint strike fighter project could reap as much as £3 billion for the UK economy in the system development and demonstration phase, and a potential further £24 billion for downstream production activities. On employment, the demonstration phase should sustain or create some 3,500 high-technology jobs nationwide, potentially rising to 8,500 in a few years' time. The west midlands will be one of the main regions to benefit: in particular, Smiths Industries will be heavily involved in work on the standing take-off, vertical-landing variant.

May I remind the Minister that the joint strike fighter is, among its other roles, supposed to be a naval fighter? For that purpose, it is most important to have naval aviators with recent fixed-wing experience. Is it not therefore extraordinary that, before the joint strike fighter comes into service—indeed, perhaps some four or five years before—the Fleet Air Arm should lose its fixed-wing aviation and have its Sea Harriers withdrawn from service?

Sea Harriers are being withdrawn from service because the Air Force considered it a waste to spend a great deal of money on updating them. That decision does not affect the pilots' future employment. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, they will be integrated into the joint Harrier project, and all of them will be retained in service. There will be no problem with the retention of pilots and, ultimately, the joint strike fighter's coming into service will enhance capability on board our carriers.

When he expects to sign a production contract for the A400M. [40906]

If he will make a statement on the A400M programme. [40909]

The A400M development and manufacture contract between OCCAR, which is acting as agent for the eight nations participating in the A400M programme, and Airbus Military was signed on 18 December 2001. The contract will become effective once Germany has gained Bundestag funding approval and is therefore able to make its full commitment to the programme.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Of course, he touched on the vital point, which is when Germany will confirm the number of aircraft that it will order. What will be the minimum number of aircraft Germany will need to make the project viable in terms of development costs? What discussions has he had about the content of Rolls-Royce engines? That aspect is very important to a company in my constituency, Dowty Propellers, which hopes to have a great input into the project.

Germany has promised to order 73 of the aircraft. In Berlin the week before last, I had discussions with my opposite number in the German Defence Department and stressed to him the importance of proceeding with the contract. He appeared in no doubt that—provided of course that the present Administration are returned at the next election—there will be no problem with Germany's continuing participation in the programme. With regard to Rolls-Royce, I am well aware of the importance that the project has for future employment and we are losing no opportunity to, bring that to the company's attention.

Will the Minister return to the issue of the number of planes being ordered by Germany? He does not appear to have a fallback position if the Administration are not returned or do not confirm the numbers about which he sounds so optimistic.

We have to rely on the information that we have at the present time. There is little point in speculating about what will happen, as the Germans assure us that the contract will be signed and that the appropriate number of aircraft will be involved. Clearly, should that not be the case, we will have to re-evaluate our position on the cost of the aircraft and whether the programme is still viable. However, at present I am convinced of the Germans' intention to go ahead with the project at the number specified.

What representations he has made in the last two months to his European counterparts regarding the extension of the international security assistance force's mandate beyond six months; and if he will make a statement. [40907]

I have regular discussions with my European counterparts on a variety of issues, including the international security assistance force. As I have already indicated to the House, any extension of the force beyond six months would require a decision by the United rations Security Council.

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. In January, he indicated to the House that the balk of the British troops would be deployed only for three months. In the circumstances, can he say which nations will make up the bulk of the six-month deployment and exactly what is the position with Turkey at the moment?

I will make a statement to the House later this afternoon in which I will deal with those issues. However, I can say that discussions are continuing with Turkey, which has expressed an interest in taking on the leadership role in the ISAF. In recent discussions, we have felt more confident of its ability to do so.

If she will take steps to obtain pardons for soldiers executed during the first world war. [40908]

The question of granting pardons to those executed during the first world war was the subject of a careful and detailed review by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), the then Minister for the Armed Forces. The legal difficulties in considering pardons were fully explained in his statement to the House on 24 July 1998.

I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful reply. I ask him to consider two factors that have reignited the issue for some of my Redcar constituents. The first is that New Zealand passed the Pardon for Soldiers of the Great War Act in 2000, which pardoned the few people that it had executed in the first world war, thus showing that it can still be done. The second is that the independent Criminal Cases Review Commission routinely reviews convictions that are more than 50 years old, including executions, and makes sensible suggestions. Do not those two factors together suggest that a short independent inquiry might be able to give at least some people more satisfaction?

Again, I should refer my hon. Friend to the careful and well-researched statement that the Minister made in 1998. The whole subject has been considered with great sympathy and care. The review took a wide range of expert legal, medical and historical advice from within and from outside the MOD, including from those who seek pardons. The representations from the families of those who were executed and the views of surviving veterans of the war were of course fully considered, as was surviving evidence on the individual cases.

The Minister is right to say that this subject is far from simple. He may recall from the history books that when many of the executions took place there were mass desertions from the French army and that, rightly or wrongly, it was feared that similar events might occur in the British Army. He is also right to mention the national memorial arboretum at Alrewas in my constituency. If he has not already visited it, may I invite him and his colleagues to see that fitting memorial to those who tragically lost their lives?

Yes. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I have every intention of visiting the national memorial arboretum in the near future, and I shall of course inform him, as a local Member, when that visit is to take place.

What the spending implications are of the revised procurement strategy for type 45 destroyers; and if he will make a statement. [40910]

The revised procurement strategy announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in July 2001 on the type 45 provides better value for money to the taxpayer, secures welcome stability for our warship-building industry and preserves the possibility of future competition for a number of naval programmes. The £2 billion order for the first six ships was confirmed on 18 February 2002. Once completed and fully equipped with their principal anti-air missile system, the overall procurement cost for the six ships will be £4.3 billion.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Can the good news that he has announced on savings be applied to future contracts to ensure that we get increased capability and best value for the taxpayer?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Value for money remains the cornerstone of our procurement policy, with competition a key means to achieve that. The revised type 45 strategy shows that, through smart acquisition, the Government, working with industry, can deliver key national defence industrial capability and ensure best value for money. In the type 45 decision, as in other contracts, the implications for the UK defence industrial base are always considered before any procurement decision is reached.

May I remind the House that I served with the armed forces parliamentary scheme on HMS Cumberland, where we saw at first hand the work that the fleet is doing? In answer to a previous question, the Minister referred to Sea Harriers remaining in harness until the new aircraft come into operation. When will the type 45s be available for operations, and what is the deadline for the Sea Harriers to come out of action and the new aircraft to go into service?

The pilots will continue in service; the Sea Harriers will be withdrawn. That is what I said.

My hon. Friend is aware that the type 45 contracts were signed in my constituency; may I thank him on behalf of the constituents and those who work in all the yards affected by the decision? Has the strategic review considered any future ships so that we can meet the needs of the coming century? The yards of Scotstoun and Govan will be only too happy to build any more ships that he wishes to announce.

I am sure they are, and I await their bids with interest. In addition to the type 45, there will be work on future carriers to be considered. That will provide opportunities for shipyards and other companies to compete for further much-needed business.

During a visit last week to the dockyards in Scotland with the Select Committee on Defence, we found HMS Monmouth lying untended in dry dock, where she had been since January. No work had been carried out on her, her crew is lying idle, and the workers who would normally work on her are unable to do so. Would the Minister care to comment on that?

Being completely unaware of the situation, the comment that I shall make is that I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about it.

What the size of the military presence in north-west region is: and if he will make a statement. [40912]

:What the size of the military presence is in north-west region; and if he will make a statement. [40915]

As at July 2000, there were 1,904 service personnel based in the north-west. In addition, there are 2,128 civilian Ministry of Defence staff and more than 4,000 reserve forces based in the region.

Under this Government, unemployment has fallen significantly throughout the north-west. Has that had any significant impact on recruitment to the armed forces in our region?

Undoubtedly. One of the characteristics that we are having to deal with is fuller employment in all the regions where before we would have had very good recruitment returns. Because of that, we have to renew our efforts and raise our game, so to speak, to ensure that we continue to attract the high-quality recruits that we need. The north-west is one of the areas in which we have a very good record of recruitment—one of the highest in the country.

I am pleased to learn that there are 4,000 reserves based in the north-west. As my right hon. Friend's Department is undertaking a new chapter in the strategic defence review to consider a greater role for the reserves in homeland defence, will he confirm that the north-west should see an increase in the number of reserves in future?

That is an important question because the new chapter, which has been mentioned in responses to previous questions, will clearly have an important impact across the wide reach of our armed forces, not least in the reserves and the territorials. It is too soon to say precisely what the impact of any change in activity will be on the regional footprint, but I shall ensure that my hon. Friend is kept up to date with any changes in her area.

What steps he is taking to improve the handling of veterans' issues. [40916]

Since the announcement of the veterans initiative, and my appointment as Minister with responsibility for veterans' affairs one year ago, we have built up a partnership with veterans organisations and with other Government Departments to develop an integrated policy for veterans. This is well advanced, and will address veterans' concerns across government and identify means of improving the delivery of services to veterans, particularly the most vulnerable.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Several of my constituents were very grateful for the settlement for far east prisoners of war that was announced in November 2000. Does my hon. Friend recognise, however, that prisoners of war who suffered horribly in German camps and on forced marches have still not been recognised in this way? I believe that they have been unfairly treated.

This is a matter to which we return time and again during parliamentary questions and in Adjournment debates. I recognise the level of suffering of former prisoners in German prisoner of war camps, but it did not, in general, match that experienced by the prisoners of war of the Japanese. This matter has been very carefully looked at in the past, and I believe that the prisoners of war to whom my hon. Friend refers have been treated sympathetically and appropriately.

What plans he has to adjust defence capabilities in respect of the coalition against international terrorism. [40917]

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. This work builds on the solid foundation of the strategic defence review, which left the United Kingdom well placed to meet the additional challenges that we now face. I expect to be in a position to announce some conclusions in the spring or early summer.

Notwithstanding the deliberations that his Department is undertaking, will the Secretary of State tell us whether, in the event of a new problem appearing on the horizon, the Department would have the facilities needed to implement the changes, representations and conclusions embodied in the work in progress, and to respond to any further terrorist threat?

I can give that assurance. Obviously further policy work is under way, but it does not affect our practical ability to deal with a new terrorist threat should it manifest itself.