If he will make a statement on flights over Gloucester by military aircraft from RAF Fairford. [76685]

Military aircraft using RAF Fairford would not normally fly over Gloucester.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reassurance on that matter. He may be aware of correspondence that I received from the Under-Secretary of State for Defence on 29 August that said that the military flights over Gloucester spotted by some of my constituents may have been connected to the royal international air tattoo held between 19 and 21 July this year. Will my right hon. Friend prevail on the authorities at RAF Fairford, RAF Brize Norton and other air bases to ensure that hon. Members are informed when there is a possibility of flights over their constituencies as a result of air shows or tattoos?

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I am sorry if such notification was not given on that occasion. It is not always RAF Fairford that is affected; Brize Norton can also be involved, as he rightly said. I assure him that we shall seek to notify hon. Members in the circumstances that he set out.

The Minister will be aware that many of the aircraft that participate in the RAF Fairford tattoo also take part in the Farnborough air show, which employs many of my constituents—

Order.

What plans he has to increase Royal Navy safeguards for British shipping; and if he will make a statement. [76694]

The Ministry of Defence works closely with other Government Departments on the protection of merchant shipping. The Royal Navy's worldwide maritime trade operations—known as MTO arrangements—enable it to offer a number of options to support merchant shipping. They range from the provision of routine advice and guidance to naval supervision of merchant vessels. Decisions about the timing and type of support offered are informed by the potential threat in any given region or area. For example, MTO arrangements in the Gulf have been enhanced since October last year. The threat to merchant shipping is kept under constant review. If necessary, additional maritime trade operations measures can be implemented very quickly.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that shipping could be a soft target for terrorists in certain areas? The recent attack on the French tanker Limburg off the coast of Yemen was identified as a terrorist attack. Such incidents show the need for Royal Navy protection for British merchant ships in high-risk areas. He is aware that, following the new tax laws for British shipping, there has been a significant increase in British-registered merchant ships—more than 60 per cent. in the past few months—and a substantial increase in British operational interests. The need for the protection of the red ensign is, therefore, of paramount importance at all times. What protection, other than what he outlined in his reply, is the Royal Navy giving to our merchant shipping?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his concern on this important subject. I agree that we must keep the threat to shipping under close review. I am sure that he and other hon. Members will understand why I will not go into precise detail about that, but the MTO arrangements allow us to make a graduated response, giving the possibility of an appropriate and considered reaction to any increased threat. As I said earlier, the security arrangements for the Gulf region have been enhanced. Maritime trade operations remain under routine daily review by the Ministry of Defence, and can be changed very quickly in response to variations in the assessed threat level.

Will the Secretary of State tell us how many naval vessels are not currently operational and on duty, and what action he is taking urgently to bring more ships back into use?

What I can tell the House is that the Royal Navy is in a position to carry out all the operations that it is required to, and to carry out the medium-scale war-fighting capability required under the defence planning assumptions. The right hon. Gentleman might like to know that Royal Navy vessels and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service are currently deployed in the Caribbean, the Gulf, the far east, the Mediterranean and the south Atlantic. In addition, they continue to undertake operational training.

According to The Telegraph, the journal of the Merchant Navy officers' union NUMAST—the National Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers—there have been some 2,300 terrorist or pirate attacks on merchant ships over the past 10 years, in which 280 seafarers have been killed and more than 270 seriously injured. Taking into account this worldwide issue, and the fact that companies are cutting crews, will my right hon. Friend speak to his colleagues in other Departments about the whole issue of safe manning levels and the ability to mount safe patrols on the ships?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, and I know how conscientiously he pursues merchant shipping matters. I assure him, as I assured the House a few minutes ago, that the Ministry of Defence takes considerable interest in the matter, and we are in regular contact with other Departments to respond to any enhanced threat to merchant shipping, wherever it is in the world.

But why would not the Secretary of State answer my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)? In the light of the recent threat to a Royal Navy ship in the straits of Gibraltar and the attack on a French tanker lying off Yemen mentioned by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), are not the Government gambling with Britain's maritime security by allowing half the fleet to remain out of action? Can the Secretary of State confirm weekend press reports that at least two front-line RAF Tornado interceptor squadrons are similarly out of action? Does not all that graphically show that there is no spare capacity and that the Government are simply not prepared for the unexpected?

It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman believes everything he reads in the weekend newspapers and, moreover, comes to the House with that material and chooses to run down the capability of the armed forces. Had he listened to my answer to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) more carefully than he apparently did, he would have noticed that the operational responsibilities of the Royal Navy remain unaffected. It is capable of carrying out the range of activities according to the defence planning assumptions. Therefore, the number is not strictly relevant at this stage. Provided that it can carry out the range of its requirements under the assumptions that are set down, that should be an end of the matter. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who claims to take an interest in matters military and the armed forces, should come to the House and run down this country's military capabilities.

Has my right hon. Friend called for an assessment of the implications for the safety of British shipping caused by the delay in getting the Nimrod aircraft back in service? When does he expect it to return to service?

Obviously, there are concerns about the availability of Nimrod. That matter is, for the moment at any rate, the responsibility of BAE Systems. We have a very clear contract with it for the delivery of those aircraft. Obviously, this is a matter that we keep under constant review. I assure my hon. Friend that there is no extra threat to the safety and security of our shipping, because the protection afforded by existing aircraft is quite sufficient for the moment.

What call-up of reservists he has (a) made recently and (b) plans to make and for what reasons; and if he will make a statement. [76696]

A call-out order was made on 14 October 2002 in support of operations in Afghanistan and related operations against international terrorism. This was purely for the continuation of existing operations. In line with our policy since the strategic defence review, any substantial new operation would require support from reservists. That would be the subject of a separate call-out order at the appropriate time.

Would not such a separate call-out order suggest that the Government are prepared to go on with a war against Iraq with little regard for international law or the United Nations process? Is not The Daily Telegraph correct today in saying that such a call-out is likely to he done by Queen's order, which was last used in the Korean war and would criminalise those who do not want to volunteer for such a call-out? Is the advice given by officials to my right hon. Friend, as quoted in The Daily Telegraph, correct—that there would not be sufficient volunteers if the call-up were voluntary? Would not such a call-up have a draconian effect on the national health service and on businesses and employers?

I have just warned Conservative Members about the dangers of believing what they read in the newspapers. According to this morning's edition of The Daily Telegraph, I am supposedly announcing the mobilisation of reserves today. I can tell the House, and The Daily Telegraph, if any of its correspondents have chosen to be here, that that is not true. No such order is being made today. Military action against Iraq is neither imminent nor inevitable. In those circumstances, I can reassure my hon. Friend, I hope, that if it is necessary to call out reserves, the House will be the first to know.

I am grateful for the Secretary of State's final remarks, because I am sure that he agrees that such speculation affects the individuals concerned and their families. The best way to ensure that there is no such speculation is for him to reassure the House of Commons, as he has just done, that there will be a full statement or a full debate in the House before any reservists are called up, so that the announcement is made here, not in the press.

I am sure that that is absolutely right. The subject of the question was the call-out of reservists and the procedures that would be necessary. Obviously a call-out order would be necessary, and would have to he laid before the House in the normal way.

Did my right hon. Friend notice that, according to The Daily Telegraph, certain Labour Members were primed to ask this question? Had that been so, would he have chosen as his conduits my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) for Question 4 and me for Question 17?

Let me come to the rescue of my hon. Friend's reputation, and indeed that of my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen). Neither would be regarded as the usual suspects in connection with the tabling of the sort of question on which The Daily Telegraph speculated—wrongly—this morning.

Does the Secretary of State accept that one of the most overstretched, vulnerable and important parts of the reserve forces is the medical reserves—not least because many of them are extremely vulnerable in their civilian jobs, which are mostly in the national health service? What inquiry has been made into the recent disastrous decision to mobilise a large number of them compulsorily, and send them home shortly afterwards having found that they were not needed?

I do not accept that our medical reserves are overstretched, but I certainly accept that, as a result of the disastrous decisions of the last Government about medical support for our armed forces—[Interruption.] Opposition Members are gesticulating wildly, and one says, "Five years". I suggest that he ring his local medical school and find out how long it takes to train a doctor. He will find that it takes rather longer than five years, which is why direct responsibility for the shortage of doctors and other trained medical staff lies with the last Conservative Government, who affected the way in which we support our armed forces so disastrously.

I recall that during the defence reviews of the 1990s, the Labour party complained that we had not cut enough. I should remind the Secretary of State of that.

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman had to ramble through a series of observations before asking a specific question, but I will do my best to deal with his apparently unconnected remarks.

The answer is that the Secretary of State is still thinking about it and he has not got a policy. Does he recall the difficulties faced by his Department when it was suggested that we might have to mobilise reservists for the Kosovo conflict? The Select Committee report on the strategic defence review and the reserve forces stated:

"If the MOD had had to mobilise up to 18,000 reservists it is hard to imagine that it would have been achievable in an orderly and efficient manner using present facilities and procedures."

"The problem we had in planning was that we had to do a hell of a lot of work in a hell of a hurry."

I am slightly surprised that the hon. Gentleman should choose Kosovo as an example. The British forces' action in Kosovo in the spring and summer of 1999 was a remarkable and successful operation. Given the date and circumstances of the operation, it is a dangerous example for a Front-Bench spokesman of the Conservative party to use, given that it was responsible for the organisation of reservists in 1997. I am sorry if he has to go back that far for his illustration. The reality is that we have a clear policy on reservists, which was set out in the strategic defence review and repeated again in the new chapter to that review. Both have been thoroughly and fully debated in the House.

I simply asked what lessons have been learned from the preparations for a mobilisation four years ago. The Secretary of State did not suggest a single one. I remind him that it took six months to mobilise the 3rd Military Intelligence Battalion before a single reservist was deployed on operations in the past 12 months. It is interesting that the Prime Minister said that the only orders laid have been routine ones, and brushed aside any suggestion of a call-up in the near future. Is the Secretary of State ruling out a major call-up of the reserves in the next few months? How much warning will reservists get? Preparations by the United States are already much in advance of ours.

Again, on both counts, the hon. Gentleman should look more carefully before he asks such questions. The United States has arrangements for the call-out of reservists very similar to ours. If he checked before asking those rather foolish questions, he would find that the United States has not taken any decision on reserves either. I answered his question a few moments ago when I said that any substantial military operation requires support from reservists, and all our planning processes take that into account. If it is necessary to call out reservists, we will do so.

What measures the Ministry of Defence is taking to promote the armed forces to students in school. [76697]

All three services have school presentation teams and careers advisers who, between them, last year undertook visits to over 4,600 schools. Their purpose is to raise awareness of, and provide information on, careers opportunities in the armed forces. In addition, a schools adviser team has been operating since November 2001, using a trial presentation to raise awareness among year 10 pupils of the role played by the armed forces and the Ministry of Defence at home and abroad.

As a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme linked with the RAF—I know that other hon. Members involved are also in their places—I am very aware of the tremendous role that the armed forces play. What discussions has my right hon. Friend had with the Department for Education and Skills to ensure that the initiatives that he mentions are linked to the national curriculum?

As a graduate of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I am always pleased to hear it getting a plug. I encourage more right hon. and hon. Members to participate in that excellent scheme.

Will the Minister give us his experience of any similarities or differences in promoting the armed forces to students in schools in Northern Ireland, especially during the period when Martin McGuinness was Minister of Education?

The hon. Gentleman is asking me to go back some time in my experience. I was not wholly conscious of such a process taking place in schools in Northern Ireland, but there is no reason why it should not. That would be a very good indication of the normalcy that we all hoped would apply in Northern Ireland. I shall consider the matter to see whether there are any differences in Northern Ireland and exactly what we are doing there.

In view of the significant under-representation of ethnic minorities in the armed forces, what special initiatives have been taken to recruit ethnic minority students into the armed forces, and what success has there been to date?

A number of important initiatives have been taken to address this key issue. We are beginning to achieve a measure of success, although we are not achieving the percentage that we had hoped for in the overall numbers of ethnic community members joining the armed forces. None the less, we are beginning to see an upward trend. That is based on using good exemplars in key areas in London and other parts of England to look at areas where we can draw from those communities. Members of ethnic communities who join the armed forces give top-class service and become good exemplars in their communities.

If he will make a statement on the A400M programme. [76698]

We remain committed to purchasing 25 A400M aircraft. Belgium, France, Turkey and Spain also remain firmly committed to the programme. However, there is still uncertainty about the position of Portugal, and we still await resolution of the German funding issues. In the interim, we continue to work with all our partners to bring the signed contract into effect as soon as possible

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. I am sure that he will be aware of the concern with which those in the aerospace industry view the A400M programme and the difficulties with our German partners. Can he confirm that there is a deadline for confirmation of this important programme, which will please so many of my constituents in East Cowes?

I emphasise to the hon. Gentleman and the House that the United Kingdom wants to see this programme move forward. The contract will enter into force once Germany has the approval of the Bundestag for funding and can make its full commitment to the programme. Continued participation of other nations, including the United Kingdom, is subject to that German signature becoming effective without any qualifications. However, there is no specific deadline in the way that his question suggests.

Is not the truth that this programme was always more political than military, and that it does not represent good value for money compared with the alternatives available? Should not the Government try to get out of this contract as soon as possible?

I do not accept that for a moment. The A400M is the best deal for the Royal Air Force, the taxpayer and British industry. I am surprised to hear a senior and experienced Conservative Member make a suggestion that would clearly be extraordinarily detrimental to Britain's military capability and, crucially, to British jobs.

What role his Department has had in the promotion of arms sales by BAE Systems in the last two years, with particular reference to spare parts. [76699]

The Government are committed to encouraging and supporting legitimate United Kingdom defence exports. The Defence Export Services Organisation—DESO—within the Ministry of Defence is responsible for co-ordinating such support. In line with that policy, DESO has provided varied assistance to BAE Systems during the past two years, across a number of potential overseas defence requirements.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. He will be aware of the United Nations panel report, issued a fortnight ago, into illegal exploitation of resources in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The report had wide press coverage and alleged, in particular, the busting of EU sanctions by Mr. John Bredenkamp, a Berkshire-based arms dealer. It stated that, earlier this year, that gentleman had brokered the delivery for the Zimbabwean air force, either directly or via a third country, of spare parts for Hawk jets made by British Aerospace. Will the Secretary of State undertake to investigate those serious allegations with the Foreign Office and the Department of Trade and Industry, review any relationships between his Department and Mr. Bredenkamp, as well as any role anywhere in the export of Hawk spares by British Aerospace; and report back on his conclusions and thereby play his part—

Order. I think that the Secretary of State could manage an answer.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I had got the message.

The Secretary of State may remember that BAE Systems in Woodford, on the edge of my constituency, is a major employer of my constituents. Will he take this opportunity to remind the House that legitimate sales by BAE Systems are good for jobs and investment in this country?

I entirely agree with that observation. I only wish that the hon. Gentleman could have communicated that fact to his hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) a few minutes ago.

Can the Secretary of State tell us whether BAE Systems provided any parts or equipment for the grounded fleet of Apache helicopters? If so, will he tell the House what were the principal contributions made by British Aerospace?

Certainly, BAE Systems contributes to the Apache programme, but may I make it clear to my hon. Friend that the problems mentioned by the National Audit Office in no way relate to the viability of Apache as a piece of military equipment? Indeed, the report indicates that Apaches are being delivered broadly to time and to cost. The specific problem that we have to deal with arises from the difficulties of securing appropriate software for the training simulator—a problem that would have arisen in any event, but one that we are obviously seeking urgently to resolve.

What criteria he will use to decide on the award of the contract for the wheeled tanker project. [76701]

The decision we reach will be based on ensuring the best capability for our armed forces at the best value for money, for defence and the British taxpayer. We will use a range of criteria to reach the decision for contract award, which will include technical and commercial compliance, through-life support and industrial participation.

When my right hon. Friend considers the award of that contract, will he take into account superior British technology, long experience in serving the MOD and excellent British workmanship? All are available from Marshall Aerospace in my constituency.

We shall certainly take into account all those factors, whichever contractor bids for the project.

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the prestigious company, Multidrive Ltd., in Thirsk in my constituency, which can outshine any bid. When might a decision be announced, bearing it in mind that, wherever possible, if all the criteria are met, including quality, on-time delivery and value for money, the Government will choose British?

I cannot give the hon. Lady a precise month, but the decision is imminent. I suspect that is why there is so much public lobbying at present.

What action he has taken to ensure the reliability of the SA80 rifle used by British forces. [76702]

The SA80 modification programme has significantly improved the reliability and performance of the weapon. Extensive trials were carried out across all climatic conditions before the modified weapon was introduced. More recent trials and demonstrations in Afghanistan and Oman have established beyond doubt that the weapon is reliable and accurate and can be maintained in an operational environment.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. With much talk of a possible war with Iraq, many people, including my constituents, would wish to be reassured that our armed forces have reliable weapons, but will he tell the House who, if anyone, has accepted responsibility for the problems experienced with the SA80? Will he also tell the House who has paid the £80 million cost of the modifications to 300,000 rifles?

Well, the taxpayer pays for the modifications. As for who takes responsibility, when we modified the weapon, we put it through an intensive trial period and, because of some issues relating to the maintenance regime, it was discovered that it was not always functioning in the way that had been anticipated. That is why we then put it back through an even more detailed set of conditions in very extreme circumstances. An important key to this, of course, was that the actual practitioners—not officials and certainly not Ministers—decided whether the weapon was reliable, but I suppose that Ministers ultimately take responsibility for decisions.

I am delighted that the problems with at least one piece of equipment seem to be on the way to being solved, but would the Minister care to comment on replacing the British Army's combat helmet, which provides 40 per cent. less protection than any other helmet in NATO?

Order. That question is far too wide.

What recent discussions he has had with international partners regarding extending the mandate of the intervention force in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. [76703]

The United Kingdom currently contributes about 400 British troops to the international security assistance force, based in Kabul. I have regular discussions with international colleagues about ISAF, including on the continuing need for such a force after the expiry of its current United Nations authorisation on 20 December this year.

My I put it to my right hon. Friend that the situation in Afghanistan remains on a knife edge and that, unless ISAF's mandate is extended, there is a danger that Afghanistan will slide back into the sort of chaos that brought the Taliban to power in the first place? What discussions has he had with our allies about extending the mandate as a matter of urgency?

I accept my hon. Friend's observation that there are continuing concerns about security in Afghanistan. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said only in September:

"I want to make it clear, once again, that we are entirely committed to its reconstruction. We will not desert the Afghan people. We will stick with them until the job …is done."—[Official Report, 24 September 2002; Vol. 390, c. 6.]

I am sure that all hon. Members will wish to praise the role of the British armed forces in Afghanistan under extremely difficult circumstances, but may I return the Secretary of State to the phrase "defence assumptions", which he used in answer to questions from my hon. Friend the Members for Aldershot (Mr Howarth) and for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin)? The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) made the very important point that the situation in Afghanistan is very delicate indeed. Can the right hon. Gentleman perhaps tell the House what contingency plans the Ministry of Defence has to reinforce British troops in Afghanistan if, unfortunately, the situation deteriorates, and whether that will have an adverse impact on the other preparations that the MOD is now making in relation to possible UN or other operations against Iraq?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his observations about British forces in Afghanistan, but it is only right that we should acknowledge the very considerable contribution made by other allies as well. Clearly, it is not simply for the United Kingdom to respond to any significant deterioration in the situation in Afghanistan. That would involve an effort by the international community, which is very well represented in Kabul and, indeed, in other operations in that country, so were there to be such a situation, we clearly have plans available that would allow the United Kingdom to make a contribution further to secure the situation in Afghanistan. As of today, I am delighted to say that that is not necessary, but it is obviously a matter that we keep under constant review.

Has my right hon. Friend seen reports that it is estimated that this year's poppy harvest in Afghanistan is something like 10 times larger than the harvest in the last year of the Taliban? Even if it is not larger to that degree but has none the less increased, will he assure me that the allied armed forces in Afghanistan are not in any way turning a blind eye to the cultivation of this crop as a quid pro quo for keeping warring factions together? He knows as well as I do that the crop will inevitably find its way on to the streets of his constituency and mine as heroin.

I certainly share my hon. Friend's concern about the poppy harvest. I am not an expert on poppy cultivation, but I anticipate that he is rather ahead of things as regards the harvest. I am aware of speculation about the prospects for this year's production, and I assure him that we and other members of the international community keep that under review and are discussing urgently the steps that can be taken to limit the amount that is produced in Afghanistan.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that last December he gave me a categorical assurance that British troops would only be stationed in Afghanistan for a very short period? When I expressed scepticism about that, and predicted that they would remain for a very much longer period, he was firm in telling me that I was wrong. Why has the policy been changed?

There has been no change in the policy. As I recall, the hon. Gentleman asked me about the duration of war-fighting operations, and I was able to tell him that those forces will be there for as long as necessary. We do not have significant numbers of British troops on the ground involved in war-fighting operations, and our contribution to the international security assistance force, as I explained to the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, is significantly lower numerically than that of several other countries. That is why it is important that we recognise the contribution made by allies.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the United States has just withdrawn reconstruction aid from Masar-e-Sharif because it considers it too dangerous to allow its personnel to operate in that area? In view of that, can he explain to me what the coalition means by saying that it wishes to extend the ISAF effect outside Kabul?

That is simply shorthand for the kinds of discussions that I indicated are taking place, involving the United Kingdom and other allies, about how best to secure other parts of Afghanistan away from Kabul. The idea is to find means of working with the transitional Administration to ensure that the difficulties that I know have been a recurrent feature of Maser are not repeated elsewhere.

May I take the Secretary of State back four questions, and confirm that the Opposition support the operations in Afghanistan? We believe that there should be more NATO involvement in the ISAF operations. What action is he taking to ensure greater involvement of NATO?

ISAF is a UN peacekeeping operation, and, for the moment, I do not anticipate that there need be NATO involvement. The countries that supply troops to the ISAF operation are, by and large, members of NATO, although not exclusively so. Provided that there is sufficient support from the international community to maintain ISAF in its present form up to 20 December—and beyond, should the UN consider it necessary—I am content that we would not need NATO support for that particular operation.

If he will make a statement on partnering services at each naval base. [76704]

New commercial partnering arrangements were introduced at the three naval bases at Devonport, Portsmouth and on the Clyde in September this year, under contracts awarded to Devonport Management Ltd., Fleet Support Ltd. and Babcock Naval Services. The new arrangements will deliver engineering support, waterfront services and logistics, estates and facilities management at each of the naval bases more efficiently and effectively, and at a lower cost to the taxpayer.

I thank the Minister for the sensitive way in which he personally intervened in the Portsmouth partnering services scheme, which smoothed the way tremendously. May I ask a question about cross-platform partnering services? Will there be any adverse effects on those services when the Defence Logistics Organisation reverts from a provider to a decider?

I thank my hon. Friend for saying that I handled the matter sensitively—I will put that fact on my CV because it may come as a surprise to some people.

How many service personnel have been trained for firefighting duties. [76705]

This deployment involves more than 19,000 service personnel from all three services. About 3,000 Royal Navy personnel, 7,700 Army personnel and 2,300 RAF personnel have been trained. A further 6,500 personnel will be engaged in administrative, security, command-and-control and other duties, drawing on normal armed forces skills and training.

Given the uncertain situation in Northern Ireland and the need to prepare for possible action in Iraq, as evidenced by the desertisation of two tank brigades in Germany, has the Minister assessed the loss of real training time caused by the need for firefighting training? How and when will that critical training be made up?

That is an impossible question because we do not know whether there will be a strike. I understand that a decision is pending, but talks continue, and we all hope that they will lead to a resolution of the dispute. All efforts should be made towards that. As to the numbers that we have deployed in anticipation of a dispute over the next few months, there must be a knock-on effect for the training regime, and the longer the strike runs, the greater the effect will be. We must constantly review the situation; over time it will create problems for effective delivery and for other missions in which we may be called on to participate.

Will my right hon. Friend ignore Opposition calls for firefighters in the services to cross the Fire Brigades Union picket lines, and does he agree that if they did so it would only inflame an already serious situation?

At this stage, that is a wise judgment. As we move, hopefully, towards a negotiated settlement, it is better to try to keep down the temperature of the dispute. Again, however, the question is impossible because we do not know the shape, format and length of the dispute and, therefore, the nature of our response.

We can all understand that while negotiations continue between the Government and the union, it is tactful not to give service personnel access to the latest firefighting equipment available in the fire stations. Does the Minister accept, however, that in the interests of public safety there will come a point at which service personnel must be given access to the best equipment?

The hon. Gentleman makes an important recognition in saying that the decision is tactful, but, more than that, it is sensible. This is both a logistics issue and a training issue. I know that there is a debate about how long it takes to train people, but we have committed large numbers of service personnel to the Green Goddess delivery system because of the short training required. If we decide to use sophisticated equipment for which longer training is needed, where will we get the personnel from? If we use the same pool of people, they will have to be taken out of service to be trained, so the logistics make it impractical to use that equipment. All these matters have to be kept under review, but there are no plans to do as the hon. Gentleman suggested.

Putting the fire dispute to one side, does the Minister agree that it would be in the national interest if one or two regiments of the British Army were trained to use the sophisticated modern fire appliances to create a reservoir of trained personnel for firefighting and other emergency duties in a national emergency?

No, I do not take the view that that is sensible because we do not want to appear as though we are always prepared, rather than forced, to participate. There is also the problem of skill fade. A sizeable number could be trained for an eventuality, but it is 25 years since the Green Goddesses were last called out. [Interruption.] I appreciate that we had to deploy them in regional strikes.

The Minister will be aware that aid to the civil power role played by service personnel in areas with a large military presence, such as my own, is significant. What assessment has been made of the impact of firefighting duties on the operational role at bases including RAF Kinloss and RAF Lossiemouth? What assessment has the Ministry of Defence made of what would happen if the defence fire service is privatised should a similar problem or industrial action arise?

As my right hon. Friend muttered to me, "Or if Scotland becomes independent." Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should explore his policy on the armed forces—out of NATO, out of the United Kingdom and out of many international coalitions. In those circumstances, defence personnel may have more time to participate in that activity in Scotland, but they are not there to do that; they are there to defend the realm.

Is the Minister aware that I agree with him about not inflaming the industrial situation while negotiations continue? The Tories say that we should allow someone else to use the appliances, but the strike is not continuous. The firefighters will want to use the same appliances, which will be impossible after their eight days have concluded. Not only would the Tory approach inflame the situation: it would be practical nonsense as well.

I tried to explain some of the practical difficulties that would arise from that approach. Hopefully my hon. Friend agrees with my assessment of that. I certainly tend to agree with his presentation of the problem.

What discussions he has had with the United States Administration on missile defence since July. [76706]

I last discussed missile defence issues with the United States Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, at our meeting in Washington on 11 September of this year.

The Secretary of State will be well aware of the huge amount of interest in the project and its relevance to our country's strategic defence. As his research is reaching an advanced stage, can he give an idea of which bases in the UK will be involved in the project and which of our European partners are on board?

I set out the Government's position—clearly, I hope—to the House on 17 October. I said that there was not yet a specific request for any particular bases in the UK and that the Government would agree to such a request only if we were satisfied that the overall security of the UK and the alliance would be enhanced. The hon. Gentleman's question is premature. As I said, we propose to set out for the benefit of hon. Members and others the necessary technical and policy considerations before returning to the House for a further discussion on that subject.

Will my right hon. Friend say whether, before British taxpayers' money is committed to that vastly expensive, technologically dubious protection against something that the MOD has assessed as a remote threat, Parliament will be permitted to debate and vote on the issue?

I said on 17 October that the House would have the opportunity to discuss the material I just mentioned, which is currently being prepared within the Ministry of Defence. That is as far as I am prepared to go at this stage.

What recent assessment he has made of the reliability of British Army weapons. [76709]

All weapons are continually assessed to ensure that they meet set reliability standards. If or when problems are reported, they are investigated immediately and action is taken as necessary.

I thank the Minister for his reply. Is he aware that on recent exercises in Canada it was discovered that the Challenger 2 tank consistently broke down and there were difficulties with getting repairs and supplies, and that many of the men who rely on it for their lives have now lost confidence in that piece of equipment? What will he do about that, and will he assure the House that, before our tank regiments are sent into Iraq or anywhere else, they will have equipment on which they can rely?

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave a few moments ago. We have to learn the lessons that may emerge from any given training scenario. Saif Sareea is an example of an exercise on which we learned some extremely valuable lessons. That is the purpose of training exercises, followed by the search for solutions, and it is the best way to build confidence. The SA80 is a good example of the process: we discovered issues relating to the rifle that needed to be dealt with, and that is what we did. We will apply that across the board to all pieces of equipment that are crucial to our front-line activities.

If he will make a statement on his plans for call-up of reservists. [76710]

As I said earlier today in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen), a call-out order was made on 14 October 2002 in support of operations in Afghanistan and related operations against international terrorism. That was purely for the continuation of existing operations. In line with our policy since the strategic defence review, any substantial new operation would require support from reservists. That would be the subject of a separate call-out order at the appropriate time.

Given that this has been not exactly the most glorious week in the history of the royal prerogative, and given that for a precedent relating to my right hon. Friend's previous answer we have to go back to the Korean war, if there is to be a call-up of reservists would it not at least be wise to come to the House of Commons—regardless of the royal prerogative—to seek a substantive motion of agreement by the House to the call-up of reservists?

As I said earlier when asked the same question, there is a well-established procedure in the House applying to the call-out of reserves, governed by an Act of Parliament. That requires the House to he informed in the usual way. My hon. Friend has long experience of the procedures of the House, so if he wants to debate the matter when the order is laid, he will, no doubt, find an opportunity to do so.

I wonder whether the Secretary of State will think again about his response. There is considerable doubt and concern about the possible purpose of recalling the reservists. The House needs to be properly informed and to have every opportunity to discuss any issue that might involve reserve personnel. I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to think again and to ensure that all of us have a proper chance to discuss that issue, which is not as open and closed as many in the past have been.

To the best of my knowledge, the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Cabinet when the relevant Act of Parliament passed through the House—off the top of my head, I believe it was in 1996. Existing procedures are therefore the responsibility not only of the current Government, but of that previous Government. That legislation, which builds on previous practice both of Governments and of the House, is something with which the right hon. Gentleman is entirely familiar. The procedure is well-established and does not require to be changed at this stage.

If he will make a statement on operations in the Balkans. [76711]

In response to the improved security situation in the Balkans, NATO is implementing significant changes to its peacekeeping forces. The United Kingdom will continue to play a significant part in peacekeeping operations through its contribution, which will include a battle group in Bosnia and a light-role battalion in Kosovo.

I thank the Minister for that reply.

Already about 10 per cent. of those currently in use are reservists. The hon. Gentleman's question suggests that we are running down the numbers because of some other pressure point. That is not the case. It is sensible planning as we move the countries that make up the Balkans towards a more normal type of society. Clearly, the military presence would decline over time anyway, but use can be made of the Territorial Army in those circumstances. That is good for them and for the country.