If he will make a statement on the date of entry into service of the Eurofighter. [128418]

As I announced in my written statement on 30 June, Eurofighter Typhoon achieved type acceptance on that day, triggering the process of bringing the aircraft into service with the Royal Air Force. That process is going well. Test flying is now under way to establish the safety parameters for RAF pilot training, and we hope to start operational evaluation activities next month.

I thank the Defence Secretary for that answer. He is aware of the tremendous contribution of those based at RAF Leeming and RAF Linton, and in Dishforth air brigade and Alanbrooke barracks in the conflict in Iraq. Will he assure the House that the commitment to purchase 232 Typhoon aircraft will be carried out in full and will be delivered on time? When does he expect those aircraft to enter into service at RAF Leeming?

I join the hon. Lady in paying tribute to all members of the armed forces based in her constituency who have served in Iraq, and all those who have supported those who have served in Iraq. I give her the assurance that there will be no changes in the Government's plans for procuring Eurofighter Typhoon. We anticipate changes to the way in which those aircraft are configured, but those matters will be set out more clearly in the forthcoming White Paper.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that many of my constituents work on the Eurofighter in Lancashire. I am sure that he would wish to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the workmanship of the employees of BAE Systems for their work on the Eurofighter Typhoon and on the Hawk jet advanced trainer. May I thank him for the recent order for trainers for our armed forces, as a result of which there has been an order from the Indian Government for those planes? The fact that those orders have been given shows the skill and integrity of our work force.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am tempted to say that he has left me little to add to his comments. Lately, I have been in regular negotiations with BAE Systems, and one of the strongest arguments put forward by the company is the quality, consistency and reliability of its work force.

What consideration has been given to the marinisation of the Eurofighter to enable it to fly off the two new aircraft carriers? If the specification of the aircraft carriers is to be reduced, will the Eurofighter still be an appropriate plane to fly off them?

That was the subject of a significant discussion that took place when options for those aircraft carriers were being considered. Those issues were resolved largely by our decision to purchase the joint strike fighter. If the hon. Gentleman considers carefully the way in which an aircraft could be made suitable for flying off a carrier, he will realise that it is not merely a question of adding a few nuts and bolts here and there to convert it. It becomes a completely new aircraft, and that was not possible.

Hawk aircraft are essential to train pilots for the Eurofighter. The recent Government announcement was welcomed by my constituents who work at BAE Systems in Brough. What action does my right hon. Friend intend to take further to promote Hawk aircraft internationally to secure those jobs at Brough for the long term?

Well over 2,000 jobs have been sustained at Brough as a result of the decision to which my hon. Friend referred. She is right to pay tribute to the quality of the work force at Brough. We are already seeing the benefit of the decision on the purchase of Hawk 128 with the welcome news of the Indian Government's order for Hawk as their advanced jet trainer. I anticipate that that will be the first of many further orders for Hawk.

In echoing the remarks of the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow), and given the Secretary of State's reply to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), may I ask him when he expects the decision to be made on the signing for tranche 2? People are busy on tranche 1, but they want to know that there will be continuity for the Eurofighter, and a response on tranche 2 would be appreciated.

That decision is on track, and I shall inform the House as soon as it has been taken.

If he will make a statement on troop levels in Iraq. [128419]

If he will make a statement on the peacekeeping role of UK troops in Iraq. [128423]

As this is the first opportunity for the House to consider the situation in Iraq since mid-July, I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will understand if I give a detailed response.

Order. The Minister is making a statement.

May I put it to the Secretary of State that his overlong answer is a good illustration as to why there should have been an oral statement? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is a disgrace. In my 20 years in the House, I have never known a Secretary of State for Defence not give an oral statement to the House when so many troops have been deployed. Is not the simple truth that post-conflict Iraq is a shambles because there was no proper planning, which means that although we won the war we are in danger of losing the peace, due to the incompetence of the Secretary of State and his colleagues?

I do not accept that for a moment, and I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman takes that view. Given that Defence questions are taking place today, that the Foreign Secretary is making a statement on the situation in Iraq immediately afterwards, and that there is a defence debate tomorrow and a further one on Thursday, there is ample opportunity for Members of the House to debate the situation in Iraq.

My right hon. Friend will recall that the British armed forces have a remarkably successful track record not only in peacekeeping but in training the armed forces of other countries. Has not it been clear for some considerable time that the most urgent task is to train an Iraqi army to take over security in that country? Will he make sure that any additional troops that we deploy are used for that purpose because that is the key to this difficult area of policy?

My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the importance not only of preserving security by using coalition forces but of using them so well to train a range of security forces in Iraq. He is right also to emphasise the need to train an Iraqi army, but in addition, as I indicated to the House a few moments ago, it is important to have an effective, growing police force, with static patrolling, as well as the various border police who are being trained. We want to see, as soon as possible, the transfer of security responsibilities to Iraqis, so that they can take responsibility for their own affairs. That is a matter of urgency for the Government.

I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to our armed forces in Iraq and elsewhere. In particular, I pay tribute to those who have given their lives since the House last met to discuss these matters.

The plan is the plan set out clearly by the Major-General who has responsibility on the ground. He has carefully reviewed the military situation and judges it necessary to have more troops given the present situation.

I certainly agree that further troops are required to be deployed, but the reason for that is the Government's failure to implement the reconstruction programme to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. It is not good enough for him to hide behind his military advice. Does he know what the military objectives of UK forces are? What are the benchmarks for their success? What are the target dates for the achievement of those benchmarks, or is this part of a Foreign Office-led initiative that was leaked last week? For once, will the right hon. Gentleman take responsibility for what is going on in his Department, or is he still playing the part of the "Not me, guy" Secretary of State?

The hon. Gentleman has just asked the same question again. Tempted though I am to repeat the answer, I shall not do so. It is important that all Secretaries of State take military advice, not substitute their own judgments in the way in which the hon. Gentleman appears tempted to do. Secondly, it is important to ensure that that is part of a co-ordinated plan—that is co-ordinated not only with Government Departments in this country but with our ally, the United States. I would be interested to know whether the hon. Gentleman's criticisms of the situation in Iraq extend to the United States.

Is it not important for agreement to be reached in the Security Council for troops to come from many other countries, including Muslim ones? Should not such an agreement, if it be reached, mean that the countries sending troops will have a political say in the future of Iraq? Surely we want to get rid of the notion that only Britain and the United States are deciding the future of that country.

I agree with my hon. Friend to the extent that the United Kingdom, together with the United States, has led the effort to promote a new Security Council resolution on Iraq. I anticipate that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be dealing with that in more detail in a moment. I would not want my hon. Friend or the House to leave with the idea that only British and American forces are deployed in Iraq. The forces of some 25 countries are in Iraq already, and the forces of about seven of those countries are playing a full part in the United Kingdom's area of responsibility in the south.

I begin by adding our support to the new forces for Iraq announced by the Secretary of State, and we join in the condolences for those recently killed. Whatever reservations we had about the conflict, if our commanders on the ground require additional forces, they should be sent.

As for transport, I anticipate that not only will there be extra forces but there will be appropriate extra equipment as requested by the theatre commander. We have recently made an announcement about the call-up of reservists. I anticipate that, consistent with the usual practice, we have sent out more notices than the number of reservists that we will require, given the numbers of those who will be exempt on appropriate grounds. It is important that we develop a properly trained and modern Iraqi army to deal with the present situation, and not an army that clings to the past and to the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that no reasonable Member could object to the reinforcements necessary for the security of our troops in that sector? However, does he also accept that those of us who had doubts about whether it was wise to go into Iraq in the first place have not had those doubts removed by today's announcement? Was my right hon. Friend aware of the reservations of his defence intelligence staff about the September dossier—for instance that the 45-minute claim was based on nebulous intelligence? If he was, how was it that the House and the Cabinet were presented with a dossier that did not reflect the reservations of his own intelligence experts?

As for reinforcements, I accept that for people like my right hon. Friend who had reservations about the deployment at the time, it may well be that such reinforcements are not persuasive. All I would say is that given the situation on the ground now and the importance of resolving it, I hope that he and those who had doubts will join me in hoping that those reinforcements will be the first step to rebuilding Iraq as a peaceful, successful and prosperous member of the international community. As for the question of intelligence, he knows from his previous responsibilities that intelligence questions of that kind are resolved, as they are required to be resolved, through the Joint Intelligence Committee machinery—something set up as long ago as the late 1950s. If hon. Members look carefully at the situation that arose after Suez, they will see that those intelligence matters were resolved by the JIC, not by departmental discussion.

The Secretary of State will be aware that I, too, share doubts about the grounds on which we went into Iraq. It was almost inevitable that doubts about legitimacy would make the peace much more difficult. While I welcome the arrival of more troops and hope for their safety, does the Secretary of State not understand that until we get political legitimacy in Iraq right, our troops will be vulnerable? Will he try to reassure the House that measures are being taken to bring in Pakistani, Indian, Egyptian and Turkish troops, which will depend on a political resolution in the United Nations?

There are two aspects to political legitimacy. There is the aspect to which the hon. Gentleman referred—the importance, as I have said already, of a new Security Council resolution involving a still wider coalition of international forces. I have no argument with that, but, equally, political legitimacy depends on ensuring security in Iraq is sufficient to allow Iraqis themselves to engage in the process of government. Significant progress has been made on that, but we want more, and we want the Government of Iraq to be handed over to the Iraqi people. We want that to happen as quickly as possible. That, too, is an aspect of political legitimacy.

To avoid a further slide into instability, clearly these immediate reinforcements are necessary. Surely, however, we also need to look beyond the existing coalition partners and the seven key countries that have provided troops thus far. What is my right hon. Friend's estimate of the time that it will take from the making of a decision to bring in other countries—India, Pakistan, Morocco and Turkey—so that they can make a full contribution to Iraq's stability?

My right hon. Friend is right to sound a note of caution—there is always a delay between a political agreement and the consequential deployment of forces. However, I am confident, given the progress that we have made so far in preliminary discussions in the United Nations, that a further resolution will be forthcoming. It will then be the task, not least of the United Kingdom, to persuade a number of other countries to deploy their own forces in support of that resolution.

Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that there is a continuing concern about heat-related illness in theatre? Is he satisfied that our serving forces are adequately protected, and how long will it be before 100 per cent. of our serving soldiers have some access to air conditioning?

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that issue. I know that other right hon. and hon. Members are similarly concerned. The deployment takes place on the basis of the best possible medical advice and determined efforts are made to ensure that that medical advice reaches every last serviceman and woman, and appropriate steps are taken. Where there is a concern that a soldier is suffering from the effects of heat, that person is withdrawn from theatre, if that is judged necessary.

If he will make a statement on the threat from terrorism to UK forces in Cyprus. [128427]

All threats to United Kingdom forces in Cyprus are carefully monitored and contingency plans are in place to handle a range of eventualities, including the possibility of terrorist attack.

As the Minister is well aware, I have many constituents serving in the Royal Logistic Corps and other regiments stationed on the sovereign bases on Cyprus or working as troops under UN command. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that there are many of us in all parts of the House who take an interest in Cyprus and who are concerned at the potential risks to our forces there? Is he prepared to meet those of us who take an interest in Cyprus to discuss those concerns? Will he confirm that the Government intend to keep in regular touch with President Tassos Papadopoulos and the Government of the Republic of Cyprus on any terrorist threats to the sovereign bases or to the Republic of Cyprus?

I know of the hon. Gentleman's interest in the matter, and the interest taken by the entire House. There are many parliamentary groups that represent the interests of Cyprus. Clearly, the important thing for us is protection of our armed forces, and I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that that is one of our highest priorities in Cyprus. I will be happy to meet him and other colleagues, as I am sure would others in the Ministry.

Cyprus is one of the countries that last year's Iraq dossier clearly implied could be attacked at 45 minutes' notice. How does that square with John Scarlett's evidence to the Hutton inquiry that the 45 minutes referred to battlefield mortars and small-calibre weaponry—clearly not weapons of mass destruction capable of reaching Cyprus? So to which weapons was the Prime Minister referring in his own preface when he stated that Iraq's military planning

"allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them"?

We stand by our assessment in the dossier of 24 September. That element of the threat has been significantly reduced by the recent operations in Iraq.

If he will make a statement on the security situation in the Balkans. [128428]

The overall security situation in the Balkans remains stable.

Can the Minister then explain why the European Union has not yet taken over control of the peacekeeping elements of the Alliance in Bosnia? Why has NATO maintained its command structure in that area? Does the Minister foresee a change in the current arrangements?

The hon. Gentleman is aware that the autumn periodic mission review is being carried out by NATO and that will condition our thinking about the NATO posture in the months ahead. The close relationship between NATO and the EU looking towards the future structure in Bosnia will continue and we will work in harmony to achieve that end.

Following the assassination of Zoran Djindjic on 12 March in Belgrade, a state of emergency was declared and more than a thousand people were detained by the Serbian police. There have been widespread allegations that torture is being used to extract information from those who have been arrested. Could the Minister tell the House what observations and knowledge he has of that?

I can give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance that where there is any breach of human rights in any of the areas where we have an interest and personnel on the ground, we would carry out the actions required to ensure full compliance with human rights. I point out to my hon. Friend that it is not just a matter of the United Kingdom's interest in the matter—it is the United Nations and all the other nations that are trying to make sure that the Balkans and Bosnia come into the comity of nations as part of the overall objectives that we are seeking by our presence on the ground there.

How long has the badly overstretched British Army been in Kosovo, and how long does the Secretary of State expect it to remain there?

Until the job is done.

If he will make a statement on the security situation in Afghanistan. [128430]

We and our allies in NATO, in the coalition and more widely, continue to work to help the Afghan people bring greater security to their country. The United Kingdom's contribution to that effort is significant. We are an important troop contributor to the international security assistance force in Kabul. We lead the provincial reconstruction team in Mazar-e-Sharif and we are active in support for security sector reform.

Given the tragic death of the two American soldiers in August, and given the attacks on non-governmental organisations such as Save the Children, may I press my right hon. Friend to say more about how the provincial reconstruction teams can be enabled to provide security throughout Afghanistan?

I share my hon. Friend's concern about the deaths of not just members of the armed forces but of those working for NGOs—working hard to reconstruct Afghanistan. The whole point of the provincial reconstruction teams, however, is not just to provide a degree of military security but to bring together representatives of the Department for International Development and the Foreign Office so that they can unite in development work, and enable people in places such as Mazar-e-Sharif to feel reasonably confident that there is an international interest in development—and, crucially, that there is a central Government in Kabul who are responsible for the entire country.

Does the Secretary of State think it fair to say that the interim Government in Afghanistan have a reasonable amount of control over the metropolitan areas, but no influence or authority in the south-east? If that is so, does he accept that, while NATO has control at present—which I personally welcome—it is essential that the United States forces remain part of that NATO force?

The hon. Gentleman's description of the situation in Afghanistan might have been accurate six months ago, when there was concern about the inability of the Government in Kabul to extend their authority elsewhere in the country. During those six months, however, the situation has improved steadily, and there are now clear signs that the Government in Kabul are extending their authority around the country. I accept that the south-east is experiencing some of the problems that are the most difficult to overcome—remnants of the Taliban remain in parts of the area—but there has been significant progress during those six months.

Does my right hon. Friend believe that the position of women in Afghanistan and their human rights are now better than they were before the confrontation with the country?

Their position is undoubtedly better than it was in the days of the Taliban. Schools have opened, women are being educated, and a much fairer, more tolerant society is developing. That is not to deny that there is still considerable progress to be made.

What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the Pakistani and Afghan Governments' continuing concern about the number of al-Qaeda terrorists who are allegedly operating from Pakistan back into Afghanistan? Has he been asked to provide any extra special forces, and will he support the Americans in their endeavours to deal with this acute problem?

The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight a particular area of difficulty. The border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan has been a source of difficulty not just since this particular conflict, but for hundreds of years. It provides a safe haven for terrorists who move from one country to the other to escape the security authorities on both sides of the border. What we need, and what we have been encouraging, is action by the two Governments working closely together, and working closely with coalition forces. We continue to try to bring that about.

What measures are being taken to improve the ability of Britain's armed forces to be more rapidly deployable as set out in the strategic defence review. [128431]

The 1998 strategic defence review established the concept of the joint rapid reaction force to provide more capable, more deployable and better-supported joint forces. In order to ensure its deployability, we have greatly enhanced our strategic air and sealift capability through the leasing of four C-17 aircraft and the phased acquisition of 25 new C-130Js and 25 A400M aircraft, six ro-ro vessels and a number of new ships to support amphibious and sea-based operations. The landing platform helicopter, HMS Ocean, together with our two new carriers planned to be in service in 2012 and 2015 respectively, provide a valuable additional capability in support of rapid deployment operations. All that represents a significant enhancement of the current and future mobility of our armed forces, the value of which has been demonstrated time and again, most recently in Sierra Leone, in Afghanistan and obviously in Iraq.

In thanking my right hon. Friend for that frankly excellent reply, may I ask him as he prepares the defence White Paper to ensure that the new structures for the armed forces, if there are to be such structures, and the equipment provided for them are the best available? We ask our armed forces to do an increasingly complex task and they deserve the best. In his considerations, will he look at language training for the armed forces, particularly the infantry? I think that that is more and more of a requirement. Finally, does he agree—

Order. That makes two questions.

My hon. Friend will recall that when I announced the £3.5 billion extra spending in the defence budget last year, I said that the additional resources for defence were a mandate for accelerating the modernisation and evolution of the armed forces. I am sure that that extends to language training as well. I have set out to the House on many occasions the need to adapt our armed forces to changes in the strategic environment and technology. In doing so, we need to apply the lessons of recent operations, focusing on what can be achieved—on the effects—and move away from a rather outdated approach that simply counts the number of platforms and units.

Is the Secretary of State content with the quality and availability of kit deployable at company and battalion infantry level in the theatres in which our troops are now working? Despite whatever difficulties he is experiencing at the moment, the jury on supplies and services to our front-line troops will be very harsh on him indeed if he continues to behave as he is and send men and women into active theatre without decent and serviceable equipment.

I simply do not accept that that has been done. While there is always a necessary trade-off between efficiency and delivery, I assure the hon. Gentleman that no decisions are taken to allow our forces to go into dangerous situations without the appropriate equipment. What is important is that we reach our destination quickly. If we simply wait for every last piece of equipment to be available, the rapid deployability that I described will not be such a strong feature of our armed forces and so envied by other countries.

In assessing the Secretary of State's observations, it would be helpful to know the background when we took office in 1997. How much force were we able to deploy rapidly in 1997? Did it differ significantly from zero?

It did differ from zero. I accept that the United Kingdom has always had the ability to deploy certain forces rapidly—that was a hallmark of those forces. What has changed since 1997 is that that has become commonplace for our forces and in all three services, as well as the support systems that they require. There has been a very significant step change in the ability of our armed forces to deploy rapidly.

The Secretary of State says that it is outdated to count platforms, yet he must be aware that the First Sea Lord has expressed concern that the 32 frigates and destroyers that he currently has available may not be enough for the tasks in hand. Will the Secretary of State give the House an assurance today that he has no plans to cut further the numbers of frigates, destroyers or submarines? If he will not give that assurance, will he tell us by how many he intends to cut those classes of vessel? If he does not want to answer directly, will he undertake to brief the MOD press office to give the right answer to any journalist who comes up with the right numbers?

The hon. Gentleman is obviously an assiduous reader of The Sunday Telegraph. Unfortunately, in reading The Sunday Telegraph he should not be seduced into thinking that he is reading the news. The interview in yesterday's newspaper, to which he refers, was conducted on 21 January this year and published on 7 March. The article has an invented headline and contains a purported quotation that is extracted from several different parts of that interview. It omits various quotations from the First Sea Lord, such as:

"I think the Royal Navy is in a very good condition…I think…the Navy has an equipment programme in progress that is its biggest since I joined the Royal Navy 37 years ago."

My right hon. Friend will be aware that during recent weeks we have heard several rumours emanating from Opposition Members to the effect that we are about to lose a number of our regiments. Quality regiments such as the King's Own Scottish Borderers and the Cheshires have been put very much at the forefront of people's minds. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that they are nothing more than rumours, and can he scotch the whole notion of dispensing with some of our quality regiments? Does he agree that that does nothing to assist the morale and recruitment of those regiments?

I can confirm to my hon. Friend that those observations are no more than rumours. Speculation about the loss of infantry battalions is certainly damaging to those in the regiments that he mentioned, to their families and to their morale. I encourage people not to repeat such speculation.

In that case, will the Secretary of State give a categorical assurance to the House that none of the historic regiments in the UK armed forces is set to be amalgamated or disbanded? If he is not prepared to give that assurance, how on earth can he argue that it would improve the deployability of the armed forces?

I find it rather surprising that the Scottish nationalists should take such an astonishing interest in defence given that, as I understand it, their policy remains to withdraw from NATO and from any kind of international defence organisation—in which case, there would be no regiments left to defend.

If the Government will award a medal to British veterans of the Arctic conflict in the second world war. [128432]

Service on the convoys to northern Russia during the second world war was recognised by the award of the Atlantic star. The qualifying criteria, which were published at the time, were quite specific and included service in Arctic waters. I have no plans to revisit that decision.

I am rather disappointed by that, and I ask the Minister to reconsider the matter, particularly in view of the welcome announcement of the decision to award a medal to Suez veterans. Perhaps Suez is more on his mind at the moment. Can the Minister give an assurance that veterans awaiting Suez medals will not have to wait several years, as has been reported?

I do not think that it is appropriate to draw a comparison between the two medals. The Suez medal is being awarded following consideration by the honours and decorations committee. Action is being taken to ensure that once final decisions are made on the Suez medal, those awards—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) should reflect on what the Speaker often says to him: "Keep calm, keep calm." Medals will be made available as soon as possible. I hope that some will be available for Remembrance Sunday; certainly, all will be distributed within the next two years.

May I say how disappointed I am by my hon. Friend's response? The climatic conditions imposed unique privations on those who served in the Arctic convoys. Moreover, they faced unique military situations in that they were attacked by forces above the sea, namely the Luftwaffe; on the sea, by German heavy units; and below the sea, by U-boats. The Royal Navy recognised that in the way in which it responded with heavy units of the home fleet, fighting destroyer escorts and escort carriers.

I say to my hon. Friend that I do not in any way undermine the role that those men played and their efforts in the second world war. At the time, the commander-in-chief requested a medal, but there was no conclusive evidence that the case was ever fully considered. The honours and decorations committee ultimately made the decision.

What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of logistic support to sustain British forces in the Gulf region. [128434]

The Ministry of Defence is in the middle of a comprehensive analysis to identify lessons from operations in Iraq. That includes an assessment of the effectiveness of logistic support provided to our armed forces across the Gulf region. Our initial findings were published in early July in the MOD report, "Operations in Iraq 2003: First Reflections", copies of which are in the Library. We plan to publish a fuller report before Christmas.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Through involvement in charitable work in Kosovo, I have seen at first hand the logistic support that is provided to British troops in other fields of conflict, and I therefore have every confidence that such support and equipment in the Gulf region and Iraq are remarkably successful, despite press reports to the contrary. However, what is the Ministry of Defence doing to learn lessons quickly from the difficulties and problems that have arisen? What further measures is my right hon. Friend taking to improve logistic support for our troops?

My hon. Friend makes a range of interesting points. He is right that our achievements in a short period—by everyone in the logistic supply chain, whether civilian or military—are remarkable. People excelled themselves and I pay tribute to them.

Does the Minister agree that the availability of logistics depends on that of money? Will he confirm that the enhanced troop enhancements in Iraq run at approximately £200 million a month, on top of the £1 billion already spent, according to the Ministry of Defence? Since the Chancellor's £3 billion war budget is likely to be spent before the end of the financial year, what other defence cuts might have to be made to fund it?

None, because all the money to which the hon. Gentleman referred comes from the reserve. We have made it clear time after time that we are determined to get the job done.

May I endorse my right hon. Friend's comments about the success of logistic support in Iraq? I refer particularly to the many examples of British logistic support for our United States allies, especially in southern Iraq, and the Royal Air Force's support for the US air force.

That is a very technical question. I acknowledge my hon. Friend's points, and that is why I referred to the "End to End" study. We must consider the four levels of support that are currently provided. Those lines of support were put in place to deal with a threat different from the one we face now; that was part of our forward-facing posture towards the cold war and the threat that was envisaged.

What the manning shortfall is in the (a) Regular Army and (b) Territorial Army. [128435]

): As at 1 July 2003, regular whole Army strength stood at 102,520, representing a shortfall of 4,220 personnel against the current requirement and Territorial Army strength stood at 37,650, representing a shortfall of 3,550. The Territorial Army strength figures include personnel mobilised in support of operations.

Will the Under-Secretary confirm that we are still five years away from the point at which the Government estimate that the Regular Army will come up to strength? It is not acceptable to shift the desperately heavy burden on the Regular Army still further on to the reserves, in some cases by threatening reservists with a second six-month compulsory call-out when some have done a voluntary six-month call-out before their first compulsory one. The whole House is proud of the territorials who have gone out to serve, including my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), but there is a limit to how much of the burden reservists can take. The fact is that we do not have enough troops for the jobs the Government are giving them.

I am certainly looking forward to the return of the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). Recruitment and retention measures introduced by the Government for the Regular Army and the TA are starting to pay dividends, in that we have at last stopped the downward trend in recruitment to both the Army and the TA. That is why strength is now improving.

Is it not the case, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) said, that recruitment and retention is made worse by some of the scare stories that are put around? Is it not about time that we had responsible comments from the Opposition, although I know that that is not the Under-Secretary's job? Will he join me in praising the work of the Cheshire regiment in attempting to retain and recruit new members for the regiment?

I should be happy to put on record my support for the work of the Cheshire regiment, which does an excellent job. I hope to be in the north-west next month and may well take the opportunity to visit it.

The Under-Secretary is only too well aware that recruitment and retention into the Regular Army and the TA relies upon those involved having confidence in the MOD and the system in which they are working: in particular, those deployed in the Gulf and elsewhere, and their families, depend on a duty to care. Does the Minister believe that members of our armed forces and their families have been impressed by what has happened at the Hutton inquiry, in which the Secretary of State—

Order. I cannot have every question coming on to the Hutton inquiry. [Interruption.] I am telling the hon. Gentleman. I allowed the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) to speak on it; perhaps I was a bit slow on the uptake. I am not allowing the question. Does the Minister wish to try to answer?

indicated dissent.

What recent steps he has taken to enhance the cost-effectiveness of the logistic support to the armed forces. [128436]

The Defence Logistics Organisation is responsible for logistic support to the armed forces. A comprehensive programme of change is in train to improve both the effectiveness and the efficiency of the Defence Logistics Organisation. This change programme is being managed by the head of the Defence Logistics Organisation, the chief of defence logistics, as part of the wider defence change programme.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking the people of Telford for the tremendous work that they have done in defence logistics over the last 12 months to support our troops in theatres of conflict? Is he aware, however, that there is growing concern among the people carrying out such work about the review of future defence supply chain initiative processes? Will he reassure them that in-house bids will be taken seriously, and that private sector bids will not automatically be considered to be more competitive?

I was grateful to my hon. Friend for raising some of those issues at a recent meeting with me, at which I was able to give him certain assurances. I can now give the assurance publicly to the House that every effort will be put into achieving the best in-house solution by the Ministry of Defence. We will work closely with the unions to achieve that, because we want a proper level playing field.

When he last discussed the security situation in Iraq with the US Secretary of Defence. [128438]

There are continuing close consultations between the Ministry of Defence and the US Department of Defence on the security situation in Iraq. I last spoke personally to Donald Rumsfeld on 29 July.

The US Defence Secretary has categorically ruled out placing US troops under United Nations command, whatever kind of UN resolution is drawn up. Will the Secretary of State give a similar categorical assurance that UK troops will not serve under UN command?

In recent operations, such as those in Afghanistan and Sierra Leone, we have not chosen to place UK forces under UN command, and I do not anticipate any need for that to occur.

Are we not sending more troops to Iraq only because the US has asked for that to happen? Does not more troops mean more targets and more cost? How long are they going to be there, and at what cost? Is not sending more troops the first step towards a Vietnam syndrome, in which we send more and more troops for less and less result?

I do not accept that. As I have already set out to the House, we are sending the extra troops for two specific reasons: first, to give the operational commander on the ground more flexibility in carrying out security responsibilities; and secondly, to ensure that urgent reconstruction tasks can be carried through in order to avoid the temptations posed to criminals in southern Iraq to steal the very equipment that we are providing to help the people of Iraq.

As one who supported the decision on 18 March and who does not have regrets, may I just express my slight surprise that the Secretary of State has not spoken to Mr. Rumsfeld since 29 July?

I did have arrangements to meet the US Defence Secretary during August, but, unfortunately, I received an invitation that I felt it was probably best not to resist.

Although the American position on the United Nations' power in Iraq has been somewhat finessed of late, it is still fairly clear that the United States believe that their forces should not come under UN control. The British position on our forces is not clear, however. We all hope that the new forces going in will help to solve the problem, but what if that does not happen? What if we get mired even further in? Where is the British bottom line?

I am obviously not going to speculate as to the long-term future. I am confident, however, from the military advice that I have received, that this present force will be sufficient to carry out the two tasks that I have just set out to the House. It is also important that we gain support from other countries willing to deploy their forces, so that we can significantly increase the number of forces in Iraq for the purposes of reconstructing the country and ensuring that it is safe and secure for its people.

If he will make a statement on his plans for the future size of the Territorial Army. [128439]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have heard the figures that I gave to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). The Territorial Army will continue to support its regular counterparts on operations, as envisaged by the strategic defence review and the SDR new chapter. We expect to increase the current requirement by around 700 posts, in support of the enhanced capability in home defence that we outlined in the new chapter.

Will the Government now acknowledge that major cuts a few years ago in the TA, including the 2nd Battalion, the Devonshire and Dorset Regiment, were a mistake not only because they reduced our reserves but because of their impact on recruitment from the TA to the regular armed forces, which are suffering with shortage of manpower?

As I said previously to the House, there have been recruitment and retention problems in the Territorial Army for some years now but thankfully those problems are being put behind us and we are seeing an increase in the numbers joining the TA.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that those TA members serving in Iraq have proved their professionalism time and again. However, is he aware that those same Territorial Army personnel are at risk of losing their full-time civilian jobs, because they have been told that when they return from Iraq they still have to carry out their six weekends' camp or a 14-day continuous camp? Surely that is wrong and will put an intolerable strain on the relationship between the TA member and their employer.

We are in constant discussion with employers to ensure that that type of thing does not happen. If my hon. Friend has a specific case, I would welcome him writing to me about it.