What progress has been made in achieving an equitable sharing of the burden of defence spending among other allied European countries in the past 12 months. [66958]

The latest available data show that the defence expenditure of European NATO allies, in aggregate, has remained broadly stable, in real terms, over the past 12 months. However, most European allies are planning to make more of their forces useful and deployable for NATO's missions, to ensure that a better sharing of defence tasks is possible in future. That is why the United Kingdom has strongly supported the need to develop military capabilities through NATO and through the EU headline goal process.

Not since the battle of Omdurman has there been such a gulf between the ability of two sides to compete. We now have one superpower in the world with enormous power and superior technology. Is it sensible to put pressure on the new democracies in eastern Europe to spend more on defence in order to become full members of the European Community, when they should he spending far more on building their health services and on other useful services, such as housing and education?

That pressure is, of course, entirely self-generated, as it applies only to those countries that want to become members of NATO. Having visited all the NATO aspirant members, that commitment is a very important part of their political profile at this stage. In those circumstances, we want them to spend more resources on defence. Equally, however, we want them to spend those resources effectively, and we want them to be able to make a successful contribution to NATO.

Whatever the outcome later this afternoon of the comprehensive spending review, I am sure that all Members will welcome any sensible rise in defence spending. Does the Secretary of State not agree that Europe already spends approximately half what the United States spends on defence, but gets nowhere near it in terms of the bangs for our bucks? The important thing is not how much one spends on defence, but what one spends it on. Will the Government therefore take a lead in ensuring that any increase in European defence expenditure is spent on the right things—along the lines of the strategic defence review that the Government initiated—and not on surplus things?

That is precisely why the Government have strongly supported the improvement in European defence capabilities, both through the EU headline goal and through NATO's defence capabilities initiative. It is important that spending is complementary, and does not simply duplicate existing military capabilities. The Government will continue to set out our determination to see Europe improve its military capabilities so that we can participate effectively in operations led by the United States.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the comments made by the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) last week to the Royal United Services Institute. He said that the

"EU has dreams of a role as a soft superpower".

I agree with my hon. Friend. I carefully read the speech of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). I was slightly surprised by some of his observations, but, generally speaking, I welcomed strongly his commitment to spend more on defence—although he did not say that specifically, I assume that I can reasonably infer it from his observations about the need to ensure that the United Kingdom has effective military capabilities. I assume that, in due course, perhaps after 3.30 pm, he will be in a position to make a statement that he wants to emulate Government spending on defence over the next three-year period. I am sure that Labour Members will want to give him every opportunity to match that commitment when it comes.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the United States is spending approximately twice as much as the rest of the NATO allies, but that its military output is about eight times as great as that of the continental allies because of the manner of that spending? Does he therefore agree that, although pressure should be brought to bear on some of the NATO allies, who, in the phrase of Senator Warner of the United States, have been "slacking off" in their defence expenditure, an increase in specialisation is inevitable if European allies are to remain relevant?

I will not agree with the precise statistics, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman's general argument. If he is going to exert pressure, that pressure might be put on the Opposition Front Bench, as that has been precisely the purpose of the Government's efforts in NATO and as part of the EU headline goal process. The United States is capable of spending all its defence expenditure in one single, coherent direction; we must ensure that the same coherence applies to the defence spending of European nations. That is precisely the Government's policy; sadly, it is not the policy of his party.

What measures he is taking to improve support for service personnel on their return to civilian life. [66959]

What measures he is taking to improve support for service personnel on their return to civilian life. [66966]

The Ministry of Defence offers a wide range of support to those experiencing the transition between service and civilian life. For those service leavers eligible to receive standard career transition services, we will introduce on 1 September 2002 a tri-service resettlement manual to align resettlement procedures, policy and structures across the three services. We are also working on replacing the current system for funding resettlement training to allow service leavers greater flexibility for such training.

Many people in Wales will be delighted that the Welsh Guards will now be based in Wales. That will make a significant difference to the resettlement programme for people who have been in the armed forces. May I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider extending the resettlement system to those who are compulsorily discharged so that everyone who is leaving the armed forces gets an equal chance of a job when they leave? Will he also consider the position in Wales. bearing in mind that nearly 10 per cent. of all those recruited to the Royal Air Force come from Wales, but that only one in five of the regiments that recruit in Wales will be based in Wales?

I listened to what my hon. Friend said about Wales with great care. At present, those being compulsorily discharged are not eligible to receive standard career transition services, despite the fact that they may well make up a large percentage of those experiencing problems following their discharge. We are considering changing the current rules to allow such members of the armed forces to receive specialist advice about finding jobs and accommodation and accessing further support should the initial advice fail. A six-month trial to assess the feasibility of this initiative is under way.

Surveys have shown that between 20 and 25 per cent. of rough sleepers have been in the services. What is the Ministry of Defence doing to ensure that those who have difficulty coping with civilian life are looked after when they leave the services?

In addition to working very closely with the rough sleepers unit, we have two specific projects—the spaces programme in Catterick, which is run by the Church of England, and Shelter's project in Colchester—that aim to secure accommodation for people who are compulsorily discharged from the armed forces and who are likely to experience difficulties in civilian life.

Is the Minister aware that fast jet pilots are returning to civilian life with all too great alacrity? The challenge facing Her Majesty's Government is to offer them a career structure which will enable them to stay in the services and will match the remuneration that they receive outside. Has he any new initiatives to offer? Very few fast-jet Fleet Air Arm pilots are left, and the Royal Air Force is also all too short of them.

We have a package that is aimed at retaining air crew. I am happy to say that it is beginning to have some effect.

In January, the Minister said that he was going to introduce something called a veteran's identity card. I assume that it will now be a veteran's entitlement card, so what will it entitle veterans to?

It is very dangerous to act on one's assumptions. I am sorry to tell the hon. Gentleman that we have not, at present, finalised our proposals for an identity card, which is an extremely difficult thing to introduce. He rightly identifies the fact that the card should be worth more than simply another card to keep in one's wallet.

If he will make a statement on the sale of his Department's housing. [66960]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, most of the families quarters estate in England and Wales was sold in 1996 to a private company, Annington Homes Ltd., under a sale and leaseback agreement. Under the agreement, houses that subsequently become surplus to defence requirements are released to Annington for disposal. The identification of surplus properties for release is a matter for the Department. but the method of subsequent disposal or usage by Annington is entirely a matter for the company based on its commercial judgment.

What estimate has the Department made of the cost to the Exchequer of this privatisation? The property was sold off before the current housing boom, but is now being leased back at market rates or new houses are having to be built. In my constituency, Ministry of Defence houses are in surplus, so they are being rented by the developer at commercial rates at no benefit to the taxpayer or to the armed forces? Is that not a scandal? What are the Government doing about it?

Who is responsible? Who are the guilty men?

I hesitate to point out yet again that that was a matter for the last Government. It was not the best deal that a Government have made, as I am sure we are all aware.

Before the Minister makes an irrevocable decision to sell off the houses owned by the Ministry of Defence at Dean Hill munitions depot, will he bear it in mind that by doing so he is destroying the heart of a rural community? Will he also have a word with Lockheed Martin, which said of the team that services our Paveway bombs at that establishment and is to be disbanded, that the work force at West Dean are quite simply the best?

The decision to change the use of that establishment is not a matter for me, but the sale of the houses is. If houses are surplus to requirements, we have a duty to ensure that we receive the best financial deal when we sell them. However, we always take account of social need. Where possible, the houses are transferred to an appropriate agency outwith the Ministry of Defence.

If he will make a statement on changes in the trained strength of the regular army between 1997 and 2001. [66961]

Army strength stood at 101,199 as at 31 December 1997 and 100,914 as at 31 December 2001.

Given those figures, how can the Government plan a land war in Iraq?

As we have shown time and again, when our armed forces are called on to defend the interests of this country, they do so.

That is not an adequate response. There is widespread speculation in the papers and elsewhere that the United Kingdom's contribution to United States' action in Iraq will be one formed division of 20,000 to 25,000 soldiers. The Army is 6,000 under strength and the Government have not lived up to their SDR commitment to recruit 3,500 extras. When will the Army be fully recruited? How confident is the Minister about putting a formed division on the ground in Iraq or anywhere else?

There are two parts to that question. Our recruitment and retention measures have started to turn around the 15-year downward trend. As of June 2002, the whole Army strength stood at 101,503, which is an increase of 1,356 in the past 12 months. We are confident that we will continue to reverse the downward trend of those years. We have put many measures in place to produce a more positive return and they are beginning to pay off.

What his plans are for Welbeck army college; and if he will make a statement. [66962]

Following the defence training review, the Ministry of Defence has invited tenders for a private finance initiative contract to provide facilities and to run a defence sixth form college, which will educate potential officer recruits for engineering and other branches requiring technical understanding in the three armed services, and for the Ministry of Defence civil service.

Bearing in mind the fact that we have a national defence service and the shortage of such facilities in my area, will the Minister exercise caution in making decisions to move a facility from the north of England to a site further south? In particular, will he bear in mind the history of Welbeck army college and the importance to the local economy of the jobs that it creates as the 10th largest employer in my constituency?

I have to say that, as a Scot, I would always object to moving things further south if it could be avoided. [Interruption.] Opposition Members have no sense of humour.

What inquiries he is making in conjunction with the police into the deaths of soldiers at Deepcut barracks in recent years; and if he will make a statement. [66963]

The deaths of Privates Geoff Gray, on 17 September 2001, and James Collinson, on 23 March 2002, at Deepcut, are the subject of ongoing investigations by Surrey police, who have retained jurisdiction in each case. In addition, Surrey police announced on 5 July their intention to reinvestigate the cases of Privates Sean Benton and Cheryl James, who died at Deepcut in 1995.

I thank the Minister for that answer. I echo the tributes that have already been paid by assistant chief constable Frank Clark and chief superintendent Gerry Kirby to Army officials, who are co-operating fully with Surrey police, as I learned from the police when I was briefed by them last week. I welcome the help that I have already had from the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), and his private office. I hope that I will be able to meet Brigadier Clive Elderton and Colonel Raydon, the Army points of contact for the police.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Recognising his interest in the tragic death of his constituents, we have facilitated his access to the proceedings as much as possible. Clearly, what follows will depend on the outcome of the police inquiries into the deaths of Privates Gray and Collinson and of Privates Benton and James. If the need for any change is highlighted by the police investigations or by the subsequent Army boards of inquiry, we will respond positively, just as we responded to the inquiries in 1995 by making changes.

I am grateful for the Minister's statement. Will the Ministry of Defence set up a confidential phoneline so that members of the armed forces who served at Deepcut can contact the MOD to give information? That hotline should be advertised both to veterans who may have served at the camp and to all serving personnel who have been through it since 1995.

That is an interesting point, and I shall certainly consider it. However, given the public awareness of the matter and the existence of the ongoing police investigation, I should have thought that anyone with material information should inform the police in the first instance. Perhaps Surrey police, rather than the MOD, will want to take the hon. Gentleman's initiative on board.

The Minister will know that we fully share the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and other hon. Members, including the Minister himself, about the individual tragedies and their potential effect on morale at Deepcut and elsewhere. I am sure the Minister agrees that the quicker the inquiry is carried out by Surrey police, the better, but given the importance of maintaining confidence in military investigations, will he tell the House whether he has requested a copy of the report that will be produced by Surrey police; whether he will ensure that that report is published; and whether he will undertake to make a statement to the House when that report appears?

It is for the police to decide what happens to their report. Following their report, the case goes to an Army board of inquiry; after that, if the families so request, and the offer is made to them, they can be given the full report. As I said, in 1995 some lessons were learned and new procedures were put in place, and if there are any new lessons to be learned from the recent tragic incidents, we will act quickly. As for the publication of the full report, the House should remember that it will have to deal with highly sensitive personal issues, and its publication might not be in the best interests of the family.

What recent discussions he has had with his US counterpart on international terrorism; and if he will make a statement. [66964]

I have regular discussions with my United States counterpart about international terrorism, including during our meeting in London on 5 June.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his response. Does he agree that the international coalition in the Balkans has been a great success and that the United States of America's intention to reduce the number of troops could influence stability in the area? The three presidents are due to meet shortly to discuss the matter. Premature withdrawal from the area should avoided as it would put at risk the stability that has been achieved. Will he assure me that there will be no threat to stability in the area?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations, and agree with him that operations in the Balkans have been an outstanding success. However, he will be aware that NATO Defence Ministers—not only the United States—have approved a series of changes to SFOR and KFOR following the joint operational area review.

In his conversations with the US Secretary of Defence, has the right hon. Gentleman received information that convinces him of Iraqi involvement in support for international terrorism?

There can be no doubt that Iraq has supported terrorism, or that Iraq has sought to undermine the stability of both its neighbours and the wider world. Equally, however, I have not seen any information directly linking Iraq to the appalling events of 11 September last year.

In the light of mounting press speculation over the past few days, will the Secretary of State confirm that, under the guise of the war against terrorism, British troops are not being situated in the middle east in preparation for participation in a war against Iraq?

May I make it clear to my hon. Friend and the House that absolutely no decisions have been taken by the British Government in relation to operations in Iraq or anywhere near Iraq in the middle east? It follows, therefore, that no decisions have been taken to deploy British forces in that region for that reason. I assure my hon. Friend and the House that any such decision would be properly reported to the House, as right hon. and hon. Members properly expect.

Has the Secretary of State, in his discussions with his United States counterpart, been made aware of evidence given to the Committee on International Relations—a congressional committee—that one terrorist organisation, FARC, has contributed $2 million since 1998 to the Provisional IRA in exchange for training FARC in urban terrorism? Will he co-operate with his American counterpart and the international policing and intelligence authorities so that if illegally laundered money is brought into the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland and filtered through to Sinn Fein-IRA, legal action is taken against those organisations?

I am well aware of the material that has been made known in the United States. It is a matter of discussion between the United Kingdom and the United States as to how best to deal with that, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that as this obviously is a matter for other Departments and Government agencies, the UK Government, and not simply the Ministry of Defence, will certainly take appropriate and effective action to deal with the information and links that he rightly set out.

Will my right hon. Friend clarify whether, under United States influence, the Labour Government are abandoning the policy of the last Conservative Administration and all previous British Governments? During the Gulf war, John Major ruled out, explicitly and repeatedly in the House, the use of British nuclear weapons against Iraq, even in reply to a chemical or biological attack on our forces, on the grounds that a proportionate response could be made using conventional weapons and that Britain would never breach the nuclear non-proliferation treaty?

May I make it clear, as I have made clear to my hon. Friend and the House on a number of occasions, that the British Government's policy in that respect has not changed? We remain committed to a range of international agreements that have been supported by successive Governments. That remains the position, but may I make it clear to him that that position has always been within the wider remit of international law? I have made it clear to him and the House that the British Government would only use nuclear weapons consistent with our obligations under international law.

May I return to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) about the assessment agreed by the United States and the United Kingdom of links between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaeda? While there may be no hard and fast evidence of a direct connection, as the Secretary of State has put it, between the Iraqi regime and the events of 11 September last year, is there an agreed assessment of links between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaeda, and what exactly is it?

We keep an open mind about the allegations of links between Iraq and al-Qaeda. I have made it quite clear previously that there is no direct evidence to link Saddam Hussein's regime and the appalling events of 11 September, but if and when new information comes to light, we shall certainly investigate it. Let us not be in any doubt about Iraq. We cannot ignore the threat that it poses to the international community. We have always made it clear that the world would be a much better and safer place without Saddam Hussein.

I certainly concur with the right hon. Gentleman's final comments. It is clear that, while no decision has been made about what form of military action, if any, may be taken, the United States and the United Kingdom are making preparations for the deployment of a major force for possible combat operations. In that regard, may I invite the right hon. Gentleman to give the House some reassurance about the latest information on the performance of the SA80A2 rifle, which will obviously be vital in any contribution that we make to a military coalition?

I emphasise not only that no decisions have been taken as to form, but that no decisions have been taken about military operations against Iraq other than those that are properly conducted to protect the people of Iraq under the no-fly zones—our air crew continue to face real danger in carrying out a humanitarian operation.

Again, I fully endorse the Secretary of State's last comments. If we are to make an effective contribution to the military coalition—if there is one—the soldiers whom we deploy must have 100 per cent. confidence in their rifle. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the exercise in Afghanistan involving a platoon of 30, firing 90 rounds each, resulted in 20 out of the 30 rifles jamming? Can he confirm that the concern is that the cleaning regime and the handling regime of the rifle may not have been correct? Will he also confirm that unless he can restore 100 per cent. confidence in the rifle, he does not rule out scrapping the SA80 and replacing it with an alternative?

I will not go into the details of what is contained in a report that is still being analysed in the Ministry of Defence, but I assure the hon. Gentleman, as I assure the House, that those matters will be properly set out before the House in due course. I want to ensure that there is confidence in the weapon. The hon. Gentleman knows, as do other right hon. and hon. Members from their own military experience, that there is no such thing as a 100 per cent. successful rifle.

In the context of international terrorism, will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate Pakistan's authorities on having brought to justice those responsible and found guilty of the murder of the American journalist? Does my right hon. Friend recall the video that was made by the murderers, including the end of the journalist's life, with his head being cut off? Does that not illustrate how important it is to fight and campaign on an international scale against those vile, evil, racist murderers?

I was recently in Islamabad, where I had the privilege of meeting the Pakistani President. We discussed the wide range of co-operation undertaken between Pakistan, the United Kingdom and other members of the international coalition against terrorism. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to pay tribute to Pakistan for the efforts that it has made to tackle terrorism. We want those efforts to continue and, along the border with Afghanistan, we want them to be redoubled.

How many people were recruited to the armed forces in 2001. [66965]

In the last financial year, 23,578 people were recruited to the armed forces. That equates to 95 per cent. of the overall recruitment target. Although improvement is still needed, this figure represents a significant advance over the previous year's achievement, when intake levels reached 90 per cent. of the tri-service target.

A moment ago, the Minister was praising his own recruitment and retention initiatives for the armed forces, yet despite those new entrants, the number of people in the armed forces fell again in the year up to last February. What will the hon. Gentleman do to stop this haemorrhage of experienced, trained personnel from our armed forces?

We will continue to ensure that we provide the best quality of life and conditions in the armed forces. Major improvements have been made in the past few years—a big step up on what happened when the hon. Gentleman's party was in government. We seek to give personnel the best equipment available, which is why we have a major series of procurement programmes; we value all that we ask them to do for us. Of course, we must recognise that recruitment and retention are difficult against the background of a successful economy. That is part of the issue that we are having to deal with. The Opposition may not want a successful economy, but I think that this country does.

When considering recruitment to Her Majesty's forces, will my right hon. Friend have regard to the many people in Nepal who are anxious to serve in the Gurkha regiments? Will he explain the future of the Gurkha regiments?

The Gurkhas have given us good and loyal service for many years, and we anticipate that they will continue to do so for many years to come. We have recently rebrigaded the Gurkhas and I know that that has gone down well in the regiments. I pay fulsome tribute to all that they have done and will do in future.

With today's spending review setting new targets for the Ministry of Defence over the next three years, will the Minister explain why the Ministry has yet to meet the manning targets that were set for it three years ago?

I think that I have explained some of the difficulties that we face. Every time Opposition Members say something negative about the armed forces—most of the negatives are based on press speculation—it can be a drag on recruitment and, indeed, retention. The language that is used must be chosen carefully. All of us must recognise that, with a successful economy, it is difficult to recruit and retain personnel in the armed forces. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that that is the reality. I hope that he will also accept that, because of all the initiatives that we have taken in recent years, the downward trend of the past 15 years is now being reversed. We are working against a difficult backcloth. Some of it is based on success, but it also includes problems that happened in the past, which we are now tackling successfully.

What measures he will take to eliminate racism in the armed forces. [66967]

What measures his Department is taking to increase the number of members of the armed forces from ethnic minorities. [66968]

The armed forces are committed to diversity in general and recruiting from ethnic minority communities in particular. All three services have established ethnic minority recruiting teams or diversity action teams and located them in areas of high ethnic minority population. The services undertake numerous initiatives aimed at encouraging ethnic minority personnel to join the armed forces. They have put in place a wide range of measures to promote equality and eliminate racism. Through strong leadership, education and training at all levels there is a determination to root out any form of unacceptable behaviour. While much has been achieved, it is recognised that there is still more to do.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Three years ago to the day, the son of a constituent of mine was sentenced to 112 days' detention for being absent without leave from the Royal Welch Fusiliers, having been subjected to a catalogue of racist abuse in his platoon, including physical assault. This young man had been awarded an engraved tankard for being the finest of his group of recruits in the armed forces. What assurances can my right hon. Friend give me that institutionalised racism will not and is not being tolerated in today's armed forces?

I do not know about the specific instance of which my hon. Friend speaks, but I can say that there is an absolute commitment to zero tolerance of racism in the armed forces. Indeed, since 1998, more than 4,000 senior officers and equal opportunities advisers have been trained in equal opportunities by the tri-service equal opportunities training centre at Shrivenham. Equal opportunities training is also undertaken widely across all three services. We clearly have to ensure proper education throughout all ranks of the armed forces. As I said, the best assurance that I can give him is that zero tolerance is the watchword.

Ministers will be aware that although the Army has recently done very well in increasing the numbers of people it recruits from ethnic minorities, the Navy and the Air Force are still on only about 1 per cent., and officer levels in respect of those with ethnic minority backgrounds are still just over 1 per cent. What is being done to ensure that the Navy and the Air Force move quickly to achieve their targets and to ensure that officers — as well as people in the lower ranks on lower pay and with less influence—represent all communities in the United Kingdom?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman's general point, and more has to be done. The more commitment that right hon. and hon. Members bring to that through highlighting the issue and trying to encourage more people from the ethnic communities into the armed forces, the better served we will all be. That said, I point out to him that some 14 events have taken place in his constituency. We have particularly targeted not only his constituency, but London in its entirety, because of the large concentration of ethnic communities in the city and surrounding areas. I hope that we can play out to the RAF and the Navy the lessons that have been learned from the success of the Army, which has exceeded its targets. A lot of commitment is put into the matter. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can engage in the work that is done in his constituency, where we have been particularly active. I shall make sure that he is invited to some of those events.

How many soldiers under 18 were refused discharge as of right because they had completed their training in the last 12 months. [66969]

None. Discharge as of right is exactly that—a right. No valid applications from soldiers seeking such discharge are refused, although commanding officers may seek to persuade individuals to stay if they feel that they have the potential for a good career.

I thank the Minister for that reply and for the help that he has given me in dealing with a case in my constituency whereby a young soldier committed criminal offences in an attempt to leave the Army because discharge as of right was not readily available to him.

Up to the age of 18 no application is refused once it is clear that the alternative of trying to keep someone in will not succeed, although that is clearly a difficult step to take. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Many people adjust very badly to leaving home and joining the armed forces, but many of those who leave subsequently rejoin.

What representations he has received in favour of privatising the defence fire service. [66970]

None.

I am certain that the Minister shares my concerns about matters of fire safety at RAF bases, especially bearing in mind last week's report by the Civil Aviation Authority into the near collision of three Tornadoes based in my constituency at RAF Lossiemouth. Given that he is unable to name one single supporter of the privatisation of the defence fire service—not even among Labour Members or from the trade union—will he reconsider what even the leader of the Conservative party described as "a privatisation too far"?

We do not need to take any lessons from the leader of the Tory party on that matter. It is interesting to note the new collusion between the interests of the independent nationalist party and the previously self-proclaimed unionist party.

When considering the matter, does the Minister differentiate between fire services in support of deployed forces and those that are based permanently in the United Kingdom? I have observed fire services at the secure site at Aldermaston acting effectively. With right my hon. Friend, I have also observed the fire service that was deployed at Kabul airport operating successfully, but clearly not in the private sector. Such differentiation is important.

I assure my hon. Friend that that will form part of our overall consideration.

Before the Government proceed with that further privatisation, will they consider carefully the alarming anxiety caused in Shoeburyness by their decision to abolish the Ministry of Defence police in September and replace them with a civilian force'? Is not it irresponsible and dangerous to place civilian police, who cannot provide an armed response to protect the public, in charge of a site where a lot of ammunition is stored?

The hon. Gentleman knows that we are consulting widely. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who has direct responsibility for the decision, has given all the assurances that he wants.

Has not my right hon. Friend been far too nice to the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson)? If he and his colleagues had their way and the Scottish people were foolish enough to vote for independence, there would be no RAF Lossiemouth.

I was enjoying that question so much that I did not want to rise. I note that the leader of the nationalist Scottish National party, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), has just entered the Chamber. Perhaps he would like to intervene to explain his party's policy on NATO. Under it, Scotland would not be an aspirant country. Clearly, an independent Scotland would put at risk much of the defence footprint there, which is provided through the United Kingdom.

If he will make a statement on the future role of Royal Marine commandos in the war against terrorism. [66971]

The Royal Marines of 45 Commando are returning from their successful deployment in Afghanistan and will be having a period of rest and recuperation. The vast majority will have returned by 19 July and the remainder, mostly logistics personnel, will return as soon as possible thereafter.

I am relieved that 45 Commando will soon enjoy some rest and relaxation. The Secretary of State knows that 40, 42 and 45 Commandos have been operational in the past few months. What consideration will he give to a change in the order of battle to create a fourth commando, given the current circumstances and the fight against terror?

The hon. Gentleman is right. Elements of 40 Commando remain at Bagram to provide essential support to UK forces that remain in Afghanistan. However, its next role will be to act as the lead commando group for the joint rapid reaction force. The Ministry of Defence and I are always prepared to consider proposals for augmenting the excellent work of our Royal Marines. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion may be one way forward.

Surely a successful prosecution of the war against terrorism depends on more than the undoubted bravery of Royal Marine commandos. If the British Government support the US Government and engage in a pre-emptive strike against Iraq—an action that many of my constituents believe to be illegal and immoral—would not it shatter the international community's current response to the war against terrorism?

I have already answered that question, not only today but at previous defence questions. To avoid doubt, I repeat that no decisions have been made about military operations against Iraq.

If he will make a statement on steps he is taking to improve the relationship between Russia and NATO. [66972]

The United Kingdom, especially my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, has taken a leading role in the recent historic transformation of NATO's relationship with Russia. The UK will continue to work to make the new partnership a success. Indeed, the fact that I am leaving for St. Petersburg this afternoon to meet my opposite number, Sergei Ivanov, shows the importance that I personally attach to developing the relationship with Russia. We are building on the existing range of successful bilateral contacts and initiatives, including ship visits, our military resettlement programme, and our contribution to Russia's chemical weapons disposal programme.

Does the Secretary of State recall that, less than three years ago, NATO was rightly condemning Russia for using disproportionate brutality in the second Chechen war? Does he agree that, for Russia's relations with NATO to become ideal, Russia must be required to hold to account those responsible for such war crimes, and to introduce a political solution that will restore peace, democracy and human rights to Chechnya?

One of the advantages of having a mature and sophisticated relationship with Russia is that a range of issues, including the situation in Chechnya, can be properly and effectively discussed. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, with his knowledge of Russia, will recognise that it is much better to talk to Russia about these issues than simply to have the kind of stand-off that was characteristic of the cold war.

Does my right hon. Friend know that, last week, a number of Members had the pleasure of hearing Mikhail Gorbachev speaking in Committee Room 10? Does he not agree that it is fantastic that the vision of a common European home that Gorbachev was putting forward in 1986 is at last beginning to be established through the good relations between NATO and Russia?

I, too, had the privilege of meeting Mikhail Gorbachev, and it is certainly my view that he has never been given the credit that he deserves internationally for the efforts that he made at the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union. He is also a man who is not properly regarded in his home country, and perhaps he has had to come here to the United Kingdom to receive the recognition that he rightly deserves.

Before my right hon. Friend visits St. Petersburg, will he discuss with the Foreign Secretary the problems relating to Kaliningrad? What is being proposed by the European Union is equivalent to United States citizens travelling from Alaska to Oregon, and needing to have a visa to go through Canada. Does my right hon. Friend not realise that that is quite unacceptable, grossly unfair to the Russian federation, and needs to be addressed with some urgency if we are to promote good relations with our friend, the Russian federation?

As I said earlier, I will be going to St. Petersburg this evening. The Foreign Secretary is somewhere in the far east—in India, I think—at the moment, so I cannot give my hon. Friend the assurance that he requires just at the moment. The Foreign Secretary and I discuss these matters, however, and I have certainly had the opportunity to discuss Kaliningrad during my visits to each of the Baltic states. I recognise that there are issues still to be resolved, not least in relation to whether the Baltic states may enjoy membership of the European Union.

If he will make a statement on the contribution of his Department to conflict prevention. [66973]

The Ministry of Defence contributes to the Government's interdepartmental conflict prevention strategy, in collaboration with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development. We provide military training to support the reform of the armed forces of partner countries, and to develop their capacity to take part in peace support operations. We also provide training and education, and both military and civilian expertise, to support wider security sector reform. The Ministry of Defence also contributes forces to operations in support of conflict prevention and peace-building. In the past year, these have included deployments in Sierra Leone, Macedonia and Afghanistan, as well as continuing commitments in a wide range of locations, from Bosnia and Cyprus to the Congo and Georgia.

Given the devastation that conflict has caused the peoples of Africa, especially in Sierra Leone, is not it essential that we continue with the pooled arrangements for conflict prevention if we are to prevent a conflict in countries such as the Republic of the Congo?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. He will be aware that there has been increased recognition of the extent of the problems in sub-Saharan Africa and in other parts of Africa. Considerable effort is being made. Sierra Leone was a good example of where we contributed to the stabilisation of the country. We must be conscious of our successes, and also of any other problems close to countries that we have helped to bring back to full stability. I thank my hon. Friend for that question.