If he will make a statement on the deployment of British armed forces to the Gulf region. [105447]

If he will make a statement on the present involvement of British forces in Iraq. [105450]

If he will make a statement on military operations in the Gulf. [105452]

I pay tribute to those who have lost their lives or suffered injuries in tragic accidents or through enemy action during the current military operations in Iraq. I also pay tribute to those who continue to put their lives at risk in often difficult conditions in pursuit of our objectives to disarm Saddam Hussein's regime of his weapons of mass destruction and to free the people of Iraq from his appalling behaviour.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. He will have seen statements by commentators over the weekend that we should withdraw British troops from Iraq. Does he agree that we have undertaken the task of disarming Iraq pursuant to resolution 1441 of the United Nations and that we have to continue with that commitment, consistent, of course, with our obligations under the laws of war?

I agree with my hon. and learned Friend. After 12 days, we are making steady progress in achieving our objectives in Iraq. As I indicated, the coalition now has effective control of southern and western Iraq, although pockets of resistance clearly remain. Coalition forces have secured the al-Faw peninsula and the Rumaylah oilfields, averting the danger of an environmental disaster caused by the Iraqi regime and thereby safeguarding the oil resources for the people of Iraq.

British forces are largely deployed in southern Iraq, where UNICEF estimates that more than 1 million people lack access to safe water and therefore that already weak and malnourished children are particularly at risk. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that we will listen to the plight of the southern Shi'as, not act as we did in 1991, and move quickly to head off the looming humanitarian crisis?

I am pleased to be able to give my hon. Friend that assurance. The humanitarian catastrophe that we have seen over very many years in southern Iraq and indeed elsewhere in Iraq is entirely the responsibility of Saddam Hussein's regime and the brutal repression that it has caused to the people there, often denying them basic necessities. The coalition is now bringing security and humanitarian assistance. RFA Sir Galahad arrived in Umm Qasr last Friday, loaded with food, blankets and other basic provisions. British forces have also constructed a pipeline to bring water from Kuwait to Umm Qasr, which is now operating. We will obviously continue to provide such help and assistance when we are able to do so.

British and American troops have rightly been doing everything possible to avoid civilian casualties in Iraq, but they are now facing a threat of suicide bombs and also of Iraqi troops dressed as civilians. What is being done to protect the safety of our troops in those circumstances?

Obviously, I have absolute concern for our forces faced with that kind of threat. Certainly, commanding officers are making it clear that extra vigilance will be necessary in dealing with apparent members of the public. I emphasise that the real victims of such a policy perpetrated by Saddam Hussein are ordinary Iraqis as it obviously makes it far more difficult for them to go about their lives normally in areas where they have been freed from his oppressive regime. That is obviously something to which our forces must have regard in dealing with Iraqi civilians.

In expressing unqualified admiration and support for our forces, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will comment on the remarks of the Secretary of Defence over the weekend, in which he sought to distance himself from the accusations that the politicians and military were not in step? Will he reassure the House that they are in fact in step? Will the Prime Minister be reporting tomorrow on his conversations in America?

I can give that reassurance. As I indicated, we are some 12 days into military operations. Much of the problem has been caused, frankly, by commentators suggesting that this would be a very short conflict in which there would be little or no resistance. As I indicated to the House in the very first statement that I made to it at the start of military operations, this was always likely to be a difficult, demanding and, indeed, dangerous conflict. I think that it is right that we should see it in that way.

Has my right hon. Friend been able to make any estimate of the actuality of or propensity for disaffection, desertion or defection in Iraqi civil and military ranks, given that many will have been forcefully prevented from doing what they want to do and others will have simply merged back into local surroundings?

There have been, as yet, no defections by very senior politicians or military commanders, but that does not mean that there have not been significant surrenders. We currently hold about 8,000 prisoners of war, many of whom surrendered and were pleased to surrender, if I may put it that way.

I join the Secretary of State in his tribute to our fallen heroes. In the first 12 days of the coalition military campaign, we should be proud of the role played by our armed forces. The overall advance has been termed, by the professor of war studies, Michael Clarke,

"the fastest armoured thrust in history".

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about coalition forces' remarkable advance to very close to Baghdad. That is a great achievement and it is important to consolidate the supply and support lines and to continue to control an increased area of Iraq outside Baghdad. I have never ruled out sending reinforcements. It is important to replace units and individuals who have been in theatre for several months as and when that is necessary. I am ruling out—at this stage at any rate—the need for a substantial increase of the total number of our forces in theatre. We judged at the time—I made a series of announcements about this to the House—that around 45,000 members of our forces were likely to be sufficient for the job that we were required to undertake. Nothing has changed my assessment of that position.

I would ask the Secretary of State to keep the matter under review because the intensity of the operations and the pressure on our troops may be a good deal greater than previously anticipated. The language chosen by the Chief of the General Staff last week was interesting because in answer to a question on reinforcements, he said:

"The Secretary of State has made it clear: there are no plans to send further forces over and above what we already have in theatre."

Those issues are always kept under review. The hon. Gentleman has simply asked me the same question in a different way. Individuals will be replaced as and when that is needed, but we judge that there is no need for a substantial increase to the total number of forces in theatre at present.

Is the Secretary of State aware of public concern that more British troops have been killed in tragic accidents than killed by the enemy? Will he assure the House that everything possible is being done to minimise the number of British soldiers who die because they have been shot at accidentally by American soldiers?

A great deal of effort has been made to reduce risks but as we have tragically seen from recent incidents, such accidents will sadly occur, especially during periods of high-intensity conflict. That is notwithstanding the use of additional equipment and the latest technology. Continuing efforts will be made to understand the nature of the accidents and to find, if possible, solutions to their causes.

May I associate myself with the words of the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State about our forces in theatre? I again ask the Secretary of State to join me in offering our condolences to the families of the Iraqi civilians who have died in the conflict.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his observations about the role of reservists. They are playing a valuable role in operations in Iraq, particularly in a number of specialist areas. As and when those specialisms are required, I anticipate that the TA and other reservists will be called on to provide assistance. The hon. Gentleman is right about humanitarian aid. It is an indication to the ordinary people of Iraq that we are there not because we have any quarrel with them, but because we have a serious difference with the regime that has oppressed their lives over so many years. Our efforts to supply humanitarian aid—specifically, in the short term, supplies of fresh water—will continue. However, that operation can be successful only if there is safety and security for the people delivering that aid. While elements of the regime continue to intimidate, harass and even kill people from their own population, the delivery of humanitarian assistance is made all the more difficult.

How many reservists are deployed in the Gulf region. [105448]

In total, 4,943 reservists have been accepted into service to support operations in Iraq. The majority of these have been deployed to the Gulf region.

I am grateful for that reply. Is my hon. Friend aware that at least nine people living in my borough are serving in the Gulf as reservists, including 25-year-old Peter Wright, my constituent from Seven Kings? He is serving as a skilled mechanical electrical engineer with the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers in Kuwait, having left the Gordon road Territorial Army centre in Ilford to do so. Will my hon. Friend say to those reservists and their families that we will see this job through, that we will do it to create a safer and more secure middle east and to liberate the people of Iraq, and that we will not give in to those who are now calling for us to withdraw and allow Saddam to remain in power?

I am happy to pay tribute to the many skills that reservists are providing for us during this deployment, including those of my hon. Friend's constituent. We often forget that many of our specialist skill areas are dependent on our reserve forces. With regard to my hon. Friend's last remarks, I can only say that I agree with them entirely.

The morale of both our reserve and full-time forces, and of their families back home, is undoubtedly critical at a time of conflict. I am sure that the Minister is aware of the disquiet of many members of the service community about the high cost of sending care packages to the Gulf. What moves is he backing to try to deal with that problem, which is important for both the full-time and reserve forces?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are looking into this. The service that is being supplied at present is an airmail service. We are extremely short of capacity, as he can imagine, and I believe that the standard rate that is being charged, which is the internal postage rate, represents a reasonable deal for an air freight service. We will, however, see what additional help can be given as things develop.

Given the pressure on our reservists and regular units, and given the threats made over the weekend by Messrs Rumsfeld and Powell against Syria and Iran, will the Government give the House some kind of assurance that we shall not become embroiled in a wider war involving those countries?

I can assure my hon. Friend that any threats or otherwise made to those countries will not be a matter for me to decide. He has to recognise that this was a unique situation.

As the Secretary of State has said, we are all very proud of the contribution that the reserve forces are making in the Gulf at this time. We are also conscious, however, of the additional burdens that will be imposed on them, which will be highlighted when we come to discuss the civil contingency Bill. Is the Minister aware that many of us are concerned at the massive overstretch affecting our reserve forces? Will he seek, through the business managers, to give the House an early opportunity to discuss these matters, so that the Government can announce their intentions in respect of the strength of our reserve forces?

I would certainly dispute the fact that there is any overstretch in our reserve forces. They are doing the job that they are intended for, which is being called up to support operations. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the review is continuing, and I shall let the House know its results as soon as is practicable.

I am sure that the whole House joins other Members in praising the role of all our reserve forces in the Gulf and elsewhere as well as the commitment that they make to their families and, indeed, their employers.

If that information is available, I do not have it to hand. Of course, I am happy to provide it for the hon. Gentleman if it is available in a suitable form. I can say that every effort will be made to deconflict the two areas to ensure that we have adequate cover for both.

If he will make a statement on the dangers posed by weapons of mass destruction in the war in Iraq and the preparedness of British forces to meet those dangers. [105451]

Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction pose a threat to his own people, the stability of the Gulf region and, potentially, the rest of the world. His grim record demonstrates that he is prepared to use them to kill many thousands of people.

What independent verification has emerged over the past week of the various reported findings, from the capture of a chemical weapons plant to this morning's report in a leading daily that there is final proof of large-scale ricin manufacture? Does the Minister feel that there is a useful wartime role for the UN weapons inspectors in making an independent assessment of the various evidence and claims as they emerge?

I cannot confirm the newspaper report to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Clearly, when we get confirmation, that will be relayed through the normal channels. It may well be to the House in the first instance. The role of the UN inspectors is a matter for the UN.

I join others in expressing my deep sympathy for the families and friends of those who have lost their lives in our armed forces so far, and I pay tribute to the exceptionally high standards shown by our armed forces in the past 12 days. What further evidence does the Minister have of Saddam Hussein's intent to use weapons of mass destruction, particularly in chemical and biological warfare, and does he think that the findings of training equipment made south of Basra yesterday by British troops add further proof of Saddam Hussein's willingness to use unconventional methods of warfare?

I share my hon. Friend's opening sentiments, and she makes some valuable points. The Secretary of State, in his statement of 20 March, issued the warning that

"we should not underestimate the risks and difficulties that we may face against a regime that is the embodiment of absolute ruthlessness, with an utter disregard for human life."—[Official Report, 20 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 1087.]

One of the anxieties expressed in the past few days is that Saddam might try to throw missiles at Israel, possibly containing weapons of mass destruction, in an attempt to broaden the conflict. I do not want to draw the Minister into talking about the operational side, but can he reassure us that our forces have been able to minimise that threat?

We have a range of objectives in seeking to minimise all the threats posed by Saddam Hussein's forces. That is obviously one of those threats, and we are taking appropriate action to minimise it.

How many sites that have been identified by US and UK intelligence as chemical weapons storage sites have so far been inspected, and what has been found?

I cannot give the figures, because, as I said earlier, such verification is not yet available to us. I only hope that my hon. Friend shares my view that Saddam Hussein has the capability, and has been developing it. That was Hans Blix's conclusion in the 173-page document that he produced on 7 March. It is only a matter of time before we find the weapons, and produce verification accordingly.

If he will make a statement on NATO reorganisation. [105454]

At the NATO summit in Prague last November, alliance leaders agreed a comprehensive set of proposals to improve NATO's organisation. They include a streamlined command structure; the creation of the NATO response force; a new capabilities initiative; invitations to seven nations to join the alliance; and the modernisation of NATO's internal structures and processes. The United Kingdom has been working with our NATO allies to ensure that these initiatives are delivered.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the enlargement and restructuring of NATO will enable it to remain relevant and effective as a military alliance and, equally important, as a political forum enabling us to engage with the United States and other allies? Does he also agree that the European defence identity is increasingly being seen as at best irrelevant and at worst a serious threat that might undermine NATO?

I agree that it is clearly necessary for NATO to reform, not least to take account of a new military situation in the world, but also to take account of a much larger membership. The reason why we believe that it is essential for NATO to link itself with the European defence identity is the need to improve NATO's and Europe's military capabilities consistently. We aim to ensure that European nations can make a still more effective contribution both to their own defence and to defence through NATO. That is the test that I am sure the United States wants to see met as it considers NATO and NATO's future development.

Does my right hon. Friend know of any NATO member countries that want to withdraw from the alliance altogether? If not, what advice can he give to the people of Scotland, who will shortly face an election in which the principal Opposition party will advance just such a policy? In view of that, and given the loss of Scotland's permanent place on the Security Council, might not Scotland be left completely defenceless and irrelevant in the world?

Given the number of countries queuing up to join NATO, and the enthusiasm with which invitations to join are received by candidates for membership, I should be astonished if any part of the United Kingdom contemplated withdrawal, indeed, it seems to me that the people of Scotland, in particular, are far too sensible to fall for such a suggestion.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the United States-European common strategic policy has been of immense benefit to the security and defence of the west? Now that NATO no longer has to worry so much about east versus west, and more about a world of order rather than disorder, and is increasingly concerned with operations to the south rather than the north and the west, does the Secretary of State agree that, as those fundamental changes are approached, there should be no rush towards early decision making? As in the transatlantic relationship during the cold war, a serious amount of thought and time should go into thinking about the correct strategic composition of NATO, especially given the serious new challenges that it faces.

The hon. Gentleman makes his observations with his customary expertise and thoughtfulness about the issues. The real issue for NATO is that it needs to reform its own internal structures and processes to deal with the changed military reality, as well as effectively to persuade its members—certainly those other than the United Kingdom and the United States—to reorganise their armed forces in order to deal with that new military reality. Unless both occur within a reasonable time frame, the danger is that the military capabilities available to Europe will not match the military realities that they have to confront. That is why NATO must reform internally as well as encouraging reform of its members' military capabilities.

What progress is being made in developing the proposed new aircraft carriers. [105455]

The two new aircraft carriers will represent a quantum step up in the UK's military capability when they enter service in 2012 and 2015. Design activity is continuing in parallel with our discussions with BAE Systems and Thales UK on the structure of the alliance, which will take forward the programme. We expect to be in a position formally to commence the next phase of assessment work shortly and intend to award the main build contract for the carriers in spring 2004.

I refer to the decision to use French contractors for the construction of those ships. Does it occur to the Minister that, when those vessels are launched, if the French Government disagree with their deployment, they could pose all sorts of problems over the supply of equipment and logistical services? Under those circumstances, if the Minister insists that Britain is incapable of building those ships on its own, might it not be better to look around for more suitable partners?

I really think that the hon. Gentleman has not followed the detail of the matter. These ships will be designed and built within the United Kingdom. No final decision has been taken about the armaments that will go on board, but we have a highly capable UK defence sector, which will make a bid. The hon. Gentleman's question is based on a nonsensical premise. The answer is that those ships are part of the Royal Navy and will be deployed accordingly.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that partnership is the most important consideration in the building of the carriers between BAE Systems and Thales? Does he agree that the sort of partnership that we are talking about is that put together between Vosper Thorneycroft and BAE Systems in the design office in my constituency in Scotstoun? The yard is an important part of the process and I hope that my right hon. Friend will help to send some of the design work there. Will he join me in congratulating the work force in the Scotstoun and Govan yards for cutting the first steel for the type 45 destroyers last Friday?

There are two good news messages in my hon. Friend's question. He is right—he has been a strong advocate of the Clyde yards in the whole process—that partnership is a key element. The Ministry of Defence is part of that partnership, so Thales UK, BAE Systems and the Ministry will work as a triumvirate on how best to take matters forward. Yes, I would congratulate the Scotstoun and Govan yards on their achievement in cutting the first steel, as announced last Friday.

Will the Minister accept the verdict of industry and commentators alike that this is a fudge, guaranteed to produce a turf war between the two major companies concerned? Can the Minister explain exactly what is the role of the Ministry of Defence? In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), he said that it would be an alliance involving BAE Systems, Thales and the MOD. How much of the risk is his Department taking and is it not in danger of having to hold the ring in resolving disputes between Thales and BAE?

On the latter point, I should have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the work that goes on between allies to ensure that we get the maximum benefit from capabilities. He may have missed part of this, but we are trying to lift capabilities right across NATO and within Europe. We are making up a very significant part of that, the French are doing likewise, and we encourage other nations to lift their capability levels as well.

If he will make a statement on use of cluster bombs by the UK. [105456]

The cluster bomb is a legal weapon that fulfils a legitimate military role that cannot be effectively performed by other means. We reserve the right to use the most suitable lawful weapon available in the proportionate manner required by international law.

I thank the Minister for that answer, but may I ask him to confirm the extent of the use of cluster munitions, including ground-launch munitions, in Iraq? Given the absolute importance of protecting the civilian population from the deadly aftermath of the use of those weapons, can the Minister confirm that he will implement the proposals of Landmine Action and others concerning the user's paying for the clear-up of the aftermath of the use of such weapons and providing full information to the civilian population so as to avoid any risk to that population?

There is another imperative in the use of weapons, which is of course to try to minimise casualties among our own troops. That is the purpose of having the range of ammunition and equipment that is available to our troops in the Gulf. I would hope that the hon. Gentleman shares that objective, including the use of cluster bombs.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the UK forces deployed in the Gulf need the best possible weaponry for the job that they are trying to do, and will he therefore pay tribute to the work force at Royal Ordnance Birtley in the north-east, who have done sterling work on Storm Shadow?

The answer is yes. Storm Shadow has already proved to be a highly effective armament, and the lessons learned in the aftermath of this conflict will prove that conclusively.

Does not the question demonstrate the almost superhuman task that the armed forces are having to undertake in prosecuting a war with a range of weapons, while simultaneously having increasingly to deliver huge amounts of humanitarian aid? What estimate have Ministers made of the number of troops that will be required to deliver humanitarian aid, and how will it be delivered in disputed territory? The Sir Galahad carried 70,000 tonnes of grain as against a monthly requirement in Iraq of 460,000 tonnes. That is a welcome contribution, but not very much.

Order. That is rather wide of the question before us.

If he will make a statement on his policy on co-operation between UK armed forces and private security companies working overseas. [105457]

All members of United Kingdom armed forces are required to notify their commanding officer of any contact with companies that supply, or offer to supply, military services, and to make a written record of any such contact.

Yes—but what is the policy? The Government produced a Green Paper two years ago on the regulation of private military companies—companies that, to me, are mercenaries. The Green Paper has never been discussed in the House of Commons and I understand that other Government Departments—such as the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to which the Minister needs to talk—are contemplating hiring private mercenary companies. The Government have to consider this whole policy and bring it before the Chamber of the House of Commons so that we can decide whether we want to have any truck with outfits such as Sandline, which are not only bad performers but have caused acute embarrassment to the Government.

That question would more properly be addressed to the Departments that may be considering the matters that my hon. Friend mentions. There is a need for debate, and the Green Paper was published to allow consideration of the breadth of that debate. It did not lead to any conclusions, but the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs—which examined the issue following the report of Sir Thomas Legg and Sir Robin Ibbs in 1998 on Sandline's involvement with arms in Sierra Leone—concluded that private military companies should not be banned.

Has the Minister examined cases in which other private firms, and not only private security firms, have been mobilised to go overseas with their armed forces—from, for example, an RAF base in this country? Are their rules of engagement precisely set out in documentation? Is the Minister convinced that those rules of engagement are perfectly clear?

We never discuss rules of engagement in detail but, yes, we ensure that all such issues are perfectly clear to our forces if they are working alongside other nations—including the relationships that they may have with their rules of engagement.

What does the Minister make of the United States' proposal to privatise the police in Iraq after the war? Surely even the Minister must know that that is a euphemism for death squads. What part is there for such a proposal in the reconstruction of Iraq?

What we will seek to do in Iraq is what we seek to do elsewhere in our peacekeeping role: we want to get a civil society together so that the Iraqi people can administer their society right across the range of responsibilities. At the end of the day, it will be for the Iraqis to decide how they want to run their society. Part of the reason that we are there is to ensure that Iraq is returned to the Iraqi people.

In what ways his Department supports the police national chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear centre at Winterbourne Gunner; and if he will make a statement. [105458]

The Ministry of Defence provides training at the police chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear centre based at Winterbourne Gunner for their instructors. Office and educational accommodation and other administrative support are also provided. That support began in 2001 and has since evolved as the police developed their own training system and services.

The centre has been a great success, and locally we are very grateful for the relationship between the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office police forces. Nearly 3,000 police officers from all over the country have now passed through the centre at Winterbourne Gunner. A problem, however, is that police courses have to fit in with military courses and there is a shortage of domestic accommodation. The huts that people live in are world war one huts. Are there proposals under project Allenby to upgrade the huts, because we hope that the throughput of civilian police forces through Winterbourne Gunner will double?

I welcome the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question and his recognition that the centre is a great success. We now have to deal with new problems, for which we will have to plan accordingly. Project Allenby is a major investment in infrastructure, much of which should have been made in previous years—perhaps even when the hon. Gentleman was in government.

May I offer my sympathies to all who have been killed or injured in the invasion—especially to those who have seen their children killed? On the subject of the gases and chemicals used at that establishment, which are available to the police, what exactly did a military spokesman mean today when he said in Iraq that non-lethal chemical weapons might be made available to US and UK—

Order. That question is out of order.

How many members of the Territorial Army have been mobilised for the Iraq conflict. [105459]

As at 25 March, 3,416 members of the Territorial Army have been mobilised for the Iraq conflict.

I have an interest as a Territorial Army officer.

I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. It is clearly very important for us to learn any lesson that may occur. I recognise that, where people are called up but not used, it is extremely disturbing to them. We will certainly look at anything like that once the conflict has finished—and his letter will probably be in the post tomorrow.

Is the Minister aware that relatives of members of the Territorial Army and other members of the armed forces serving in the Iraq war will have been somewhat confused and disappointed by his earlier answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), as they perceive that the Government have indicated that post and packaging will be sent free of charge to the Gulf? In my constituency last Thursday, people were charged the full amount at post offices. They were also told that, on Government instructions, the weight limit had been reduced to 2 kg. Can that be right? Is that helping the morale of the relatives?

We have to make it clear that there was never any statement by a member of the Government that the entire postal service to the Gulf would be free. What we have said is that we are considering ways to institute a surface postal service, which can only come in later—it cannot come in at this moment because of the importance of getting supplies out there. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering the possibility of providing a free service in addition to the present service, not as a substitute.

What about the weight limit?

As far as I know, the weight limit remains unchanged. The weight limit for a mail package has always been, I think, 2.2 kg.

Whether he expects more UK troops to be deployed to Iraq. [105460]

As I indicated to the House earlier, we have no current plans to announce significant additional deployments of United Kingdom forces to the Gulf region, but there are provisional plans for sub-units and individuals who have been in the middle east since late last year to be replaced shortly.

May I offer my condolences to the families of all those who have lost their lives? Having said that, may I ask the Secretary of State whether he has sufficient troops to ensure that humanitarian aid will get through to the people of Iraq in the various centres outside the major cities? Will he also convey the fact that many British people are concerned about the welfare of the people of Iraq?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations. In previous statements to the House, I have set out the deployment of a balanced and flexible force to the Gulf. Deploying and now sustaining that force is a very significant logistical achievement, not least because, as other right hon. and hon. Members have said, it is engaged not only in intense war fighting, but at the same time in supplying significant humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people.

No plan survives contact with the enemy and, as the Secretary of State has just made clear, our troops are now engaged in conventional warfare, counter-insurgency operations and bringing humanitarian aid. It would appear from the outside that that is much more manpower intensive than one might have assumed before operations began. While keeping his options open for the reinforcement of British troops in theatre, will the Secretary of State assure the House that he will make the necessary notice-to-move decisions in order to trigger the necessary expenditure on, and preparation of, the units that might be sent? Will he undertake not to leave them sitting there on peacetime establishments and on peacetime processes before he makes that decision?

Those decisions are consequential upon an assessment that the extra forces are required. As I have indicated consistently to the House today, I do not judge that those forces are, at present, required. Should we reach that decision, the decisions that the hon. Gentleman calls for will certainly be made in time.

Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State accept from us that humanitarian aspects of our troops' work are extremely important and that they could take place over a long period—years, in fact? Does he accept that proposition and that time and resources will be required? Will he assure us that the Government will not flinch from that?

The Government will take all the decisions that are necessary. I do not think that it is particularly helpful at this stage to put a limit on the amount of time that will be required. The Government's objective is to restore Iraq to its own people. The country has great resources of intelligence and education and natural resources of oil, which should allow it to be reconstructed and to play its rightful role in the international community. I see no reason why Iraq should not have that opportunity once Saddam Hussein's regime is removed.

When our troops are deployed to a war zone, are they not entitled to believe that, if anything serious happens to them, their families will be the first to know? Does the Secretary of State recall that, on 22 March, the BBC announced the collision of two helicopters from HMS Ark Royal with a consequent loss of life? My constituent, Peter Scott, is the father of a helicopter pilot on HMS Ark Royal, and he has written to me as follows:

"You cannot imagine the shock and anguish experienced by our family and friends until it was possible to ascertain the safety of our son."

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. As I have said previously, we have indicated to our broadcasters, in particular, that they should approach those issues with sensitivity and respect for the families of the armed forces here at home. However, a balance must be struck in terms of his question. For example, as a simple indication, if eight members of the armed forces had been killed, there is clearly a risk that every single family who has a member serving in the Gulf would be in the same position as that so rightly described by the hon. Gentleman on behalf of his constituent. The balance is a difficult one to strike, but we have appealed to the broadcasters to be sensitive and to have regard to the families. Because of modern technology and the way in which the conflict is often reported in real time back in the United Kingdom, people can often identify their loved ones from the material that is broadcast. Broadcasters should therefore exercise appropriate restraint.

What assessment he has made of the effects of the use of (a) cluster bombs and (b) depleted uranium weapons by UK forces in Iraq since the start of the current conflict. [105462]

At this stage of the conflict in Iraq, it is not possible to make an accurate assessment of the effects of the use of cluster bombs or depleted uranium weapons. We recognise that unexploded cluster bombs and, indeed, all unexploded ordnance are a matter of humanitarian concern. As such, we are committed to working towards the clearance of explosive remnants of war as part of the renewal of Iraq.

In view of the record of the use of cluster bombs in other theatres of war and the fact that they remain in the ground for decades to come, maiming civilians and children, would the Minister support adding the use of cluster bombs to the Montreal convention on the banning of the use of land mines? The effect of a cluster bomb is very similar to that of a land mine.

On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, we have no plans to so designate cluster bombs. I hope that he heard my earlier answer on the efficacy of their use. It is about saving the lives of our serving troops, and I hope that my hon. Friend shares my sentiment on that point.

If cluster bombs were deployed, RAF Tornadoes would almost certainly deliver them. Does the Minister agree that it is vital to expedite the investigation of the tragic loss of a Tornado from RAF Marham to a Patriot missile? Does he agree that the accident is even more extraordinary given that not one Iraqi aircraft has left the ground during this conflict?

The RAF has played a magnificent role, using not only Tornadoes but the range of capabilities that it has put into theatre. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary visited Marham on Thursday to talk to the families. All Ministers are engaged in a round of visits to bases to thank the families and the personnel who are still there, and in recognition of the magnificent task that has been carried out in pursuit of the coalition's aims.

If he will make a statement on the role of the Royal Navy and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary in the Gulf region. [105466]

The Royal Navy and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary have many years of experience of operating in the Gulf region. Since 1980, Armilla patrols, currently undertaken by HMS Richmond and her supporting tanker, RFA Brambleleaf, have maintained a presence in the region.

Order.

I thank the Minister for quite the most comprehensive reply that I have ever received. He will recognise that in my constituency our thoughts are with the men and women of the Fleet Air Arm and the Royal Navy service fleet, but may I ask a question about the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service? It has been mentioned several times that RFA Sir Galahad has entered Umm Qasr; does he expect any ships of the RFAS, or merchant ships chartered to the Ministry of Defence, with greater carrying capacity to use those port facilities for humanitarian aid in the near future?

The hon. Gentleman should be aware that Australian grain ships are on the way. We shall continue to examine what other use can be made of RFA vessels, because humanitarian aid will build up. All of that is being considered.