What recent training the armed forces have received to prepare them for co-operation with European armed forces outside the NATO system. [135543]

Our armed forces conduct a wide range of training with our European partners. Such training assists in preparing forces for multinational operations, whether they are led by NATO, the European Union or the United Nations, or undertaken as part of an ad hoc coalition.

Has the Secretary of State consulted the Bosnian Government as to whether they would prefer NATO or the European Union to continue in charge of peacekeeping operations after next spring? The Bosnian Government may not have spoken publicly because of their financial dependence on the EU, but would it not be infinitely preferable for NATO to be the umbrella organisation in charge of peacekeeping, even if the United States is not involved?

May I make it clear to the House that no decision has yet been taken to end NATO's operation in Bosnia? There are discussions about the possibility of follow-on operations. As the hon. Lady implies, the EU could lead such follow-on operations, although, again, no decision has been taken. We will certainly consult the Bosnian Government before any such decisions are taken.

One area of European co-operation is the international security assistance force in Afghanistan. Last week, members of Select Committee on Defence, including me, were privileged to visit Kabul and, in particular, see the work being carried out by the civil and military co-operation teams. Those teams are rebuilding hospitals, roads and schools, but they are unfortunately still vastly underfunded. Will the Secretary of State examine ways of funding that vital service in Afghanistan?

I thank my hon. Friend. I know that he and his colleagues had an interesting visit to Afghanistan, and I will certainly take full account of their views about it. We want to ensure that all such activities in Afghanistan are properly and adequately funded.

I am interested that the Secretary of State says that no decision has been taken about Bosnian peacekeeping, given that it was announced at the Copenhagen summit, which I believe the Prime Minister attended last December. that the EU would be taking over peacekeeping in Bosnia last spring.

If I may take the hon. Gentleman back to the question, he may have seen that it relates to training and co-operation with European armed forces. If his concern about the armed forces were sincere, he would recognise that the more training we do with other European forces, the more effective, and therefore less stretched, our armed forces become. I have never heard him congratulate the Ministry of Defence or the armed forces on the excellence of their co-operation with other European nations.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy), I had the privilege of visiting Afghanistan last week. Will my right hon. Friend commend the work carried out by the European partners in Afghanistan, and in particular the work done by British armed forces in Afghanistan under the able command of Colonel Richard Kemp? Will he confirm that that is a good example of co-operation between the European allies, which is desperately needed in bringing peace and security to that country?

My hon. Friend is quite right. That is a practical illustration of the benefits of common training and co-operation with other European nations. He is right to commend that; I only regret that we never hear such words from the Conservative Front Bench.

For what reason Ministry of Defence Police area policing teams are being disbanded. [135544]

Following recommendations made during the quinquennial review process and as a result of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary's inspection in April 2002, two internal reports were produced. The Ministry of Defence Police Agency management board concluded that the existing area policing team structure should be withdrawn and that divisional support groups should be created.

The arrangements described by the Under-Secretary have been introduced by only one working group in consultation with the Ministry of Defence police. There was no consultation with the Home Office constabulary. The interface between the Ministry of Defence police and the Home Office county constabularies is crucial given the new stress on homeland security. There will again be job losses for the Ministry of Defence police just when we need it more. Can the hon. Gentleman explain why, apart from cutting the Army's budget, the Labour Government are doing that?

The formation of the divisional support groups will enable the force to implement the Home Office national intelligence model—I thought the hon. Gentleman would welcome that—which will mean a more focused defence intelligence-led approach to crime against the defence estate. It is absolutely nothing to do with cuts because no budgetary issues arise at the moment.

Does the Minister's brief explain to him what the difference is between the divisional support group and the existing arrangements, because it is not too clear to me or, more important, to officers in the Ministry of Defence police and their federation? Is there not a case for the Minister to have a word with the board, those very important people, to tell them to communicate with their officers and perhaps with Members of Parliament and Ministers to explain what the qualitative difference is? Discuss.

I can assure my hon. Friend, who takes the matter very seriously, that the chief constable and his board are in discussion with the Defence Police Federation, and I spoke recently at its conference in Manchester. I will certainly take note of his comments.

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. I wonder whether he could explain why under the divisional support groups the Ministry of Defence police will no longer be capable of looking after and supervising married quarters establishments? At a time when the threat to married quarters and indeed the whole defence establishment is rising, surely it is time for some fresh thinking from the Government about how our defence establishment should be properly protected, especially when homeland security is in such a parlous state?

I should have thought that the decision taken by the Ministry of Defence Police Agency management board was innovative and an example of fresh thinking. The security of service families' accommodation will be a matter for local commanders to resolve.

Given the important role that civilian police forces increasingly play in providing support for the policing of military bases, does it not make sense for the MOD police and their civilian counterparts to work more closely together and to use whichever force, civilian or military, is best placed to provide the particular policing service that is required?

My hon. Friend is right, of course, because, unlike the Conservative party, he understands the flexibility that is needed to manage the urgent requirements in the defence estate. I am disappointed at the way in which Opposition Front Benchers have debated this matter.

What his policy is on the extent to which UK armed forces should be able to operate independently of the United States. [135545]

Our policy is to continue to develop balanced, flexible forces able to undertake a wide range of military tasks, normally alongside the forces of other NATO and EU countries, in support of the United Kingdom's security objectives, but, as I have repeatedly said, it is highly unlikely that the UK would be engaged in large-scale combat operations without the United States.

I agree with that answer, but is not the reality that the relationship between the two countries is one of subservience rather than closeness? It is inconceivable, for example, that Britain could use its so-called independent nuclear deterrent without US approval and technical co-operation. Is not the reality that those who are concerned about the potential loss of sovereignty over foreign affairs and defence to the EU under the EU constitution should be far more worried about the loss of such sovereignty to the United States?

I simply do not accept that. Obviously, the views of the United Kingdom and of the United States closely coincide on a great number of important defence and security issues. Therefore, it is vital that we can operate alongside the United States, our key defence ally in NATO, and, indeed, bilaterally. The United Kingdom offers expertise, defence capability and advice, which is valued by the United States, as is currently being demonstrated in Iraq.

On the question of military co-operation with the United States, did the Secretary of State read the article in the Independent on Sunday, which showed that a British company, BNFL, which is owned by taxpayers, is seeking contracts to develop America's next generation of nuclear weapons of mass destruction? If that is the case, does he agree that, in doing so, we would be in breach of article I and article VI of the non-proliferation treaty, to which we and the United States are signatories?

Obviously the nature of the work entered into by BNFL depends entirely on its judgment as to business opportunities, but I agree with my hon. Friend to this extent—it is important that the BNFL board ensures that all its business activities comply with the United Kingdom's nuclear non-proliferation obligations.

Ignoring the anti-American sentiment of the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), does the Secretary of State agree that the coherence that the NATO structure has brought to the command and control systems that have so benefited the defence of this country for many years is in danger of being undermined by a lack of coherence on the part of some of our European partners? Does he agree that the call from Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany and France for a separate defence structure is hugely unwelcome and likely to be very damaging to the coherence of NATO?

The hon. Gentleman is correct, and that is why the Government have made clear our unwillingness to accept the Tervuren proposals, as they are known, and why we have emphasised repeatedly the importance of the primacy of NATO command and control in delivering precisely the benefits to European coherence that were set out by the hon. Gentleman.

What assessment does the Secretary of State make of the contribution that the proposed armaments capability agency would make to building capacity in Europe, because the question is not whether we work independently of the United States or not, but what capacity Europe and the UK have to be able to do so?

I have repeatedly made clear the importance to the United Kingdom of ensuring that European allies can contribute effectively, specifically to NATO operations, but also to other European operations where NATO is not engaged. That means developing European military capabilities. The agency is designed to achieve that, to identify existing gaps in capability and to recommend ways in which those gaps might best be filled. That is why the United Kingdom has been such a strong supporter of the agency.

Whether our armed forces can or cannot operate independently of the United States obviously will depend on our resources. How will the Secretary of State fund the necessary investment required to enable us to operate alongside, let alone independently of, the United States? He talks about the massive amount of investment needed for new technology. but we are now told that the two new carriers will be smaller than anticipated and that there will be a reduction in the numbers of the joint strike fighter aircraft. New Labour, like old Labour, is basically about defence cuts. Even the Department's own accounts—for the second year running—only receive a qualified certificate from Sir John Bourn, the Comptroller and Auditor General. If they were the accounts of the Secretary of State's political association, it would have called in the receiver by now.

I have made clear to the House repeatedly—I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman seems to have overlooked it—that recent announcements about the amounts available for defence demonstrate that we have the largest planned increase in spending in more than 20 years. The huffing and puffing that he brings to the Dispatch Box might be taken a little more seriously if he and his Front-Bench colleagues were able categorically to state that they would match those spending plans. We have not heard them make any specific contribution to that effect. This is an opportunity for them to say that they will match those spending plans pound for pound.

If he will make a statement on the work of the SaBRE—supporting Britain's reservists and employers—project in Wales to secure the release of employees for service in the reserve forces. [135546]

The supporting Britain's reservists and employers campaign has been vigorously pursued in Wales. Approximately 500 employers have been contacted and presentations have also been made to the Welsh Assembly, the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors and the Chartered Management Institute. During this first year, the SaBRE campaign team has been able to answer employers' questions and concerns and has established a help line to offer advice to employers, who can also make contact via the internet, on www.sabre.mod.uk.

I thank my hon. Friend for his response and for the specific interest that he has shown in the work of SaBRE in Wales. I need not remind him that south Wales has been fertile ground for recruitment to the regular armed forces and the recruitment of reservists; as such, there is a particular draw upon the reserves and resources of families and employers. Will he join me in congratulating the excellent work of employers throughout south Wales? I look forward to welcoming my hon. Friend to Ogmore and Bridgend to see examples of that work.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his relationship with employers in his constituency both large and small, particularly Sony and Ford, which have made a considerable contribution to our reservist force. I am indeed looking forward to going to Wales later this month.

I congratulate the SaBRE project in Wales, but does the Minister accept that one of its advantages is that a fully formed unit—the Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers—has been sent from Wales, because when soldiers are with a formed unit, with their own officers and senior NCOs, not only are the soldiers happier, but the community is better able to support them? Another example of that is the formed platoon of the 3rd Battalion. Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment in my own constituency. Does the Minister accept that the lessons of such examples are that we do not have enough territorials, and that if the Government want to go on using more and more of them, they will have to expand the Territorial Army again?

Two things occur to me about the hon. Gentleman's question. He is right to say that the preferred option would always be to send a full brigade—but the reservists and the Territorial Army make a significant impact on the specialities that our armed forces require, and that will be the case for some time to come.

Reservists depend on a measure of Government expenditure, so will the hon. Gentleman invite his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to correct the record? The one spending programme that we have pledged to match is defence spending, and he should put that right before he says anything else to the House. Secondly, Army overstretch means that many employers are fed up with the frequency with which their Territorial Army employers are called up; some are even making membership of the TA or the reservists a bar to employment. The full-time reserve service therefore plays a vital role. Why, then, have the Government frozen recruitment of full-time reservists at just over 1,000, when the Regular Army trained strength is short of more than 3,800 people, and thousands more are unfit for deployment? Is that not another example of emergency in-year cuts as the Minister's Department is gripped by a financial crisis, with defence commitments outstripping resources, and Labour failing the armed forces?

He'll be a reserve next week.

As always, my hon. Friend has beaten me to it.

When he last met the US Defence Secretary to discuss the European security and defence policy. [135548]

I last met the US Defence Secretary at the NATO ministerial meeting on 7 October, when we discussed a number of defence issues including European security and defence policy.

Will the Secretary of State acknowledge the vital role that the United States has played in the defence not only of the United Kingdom but of the whole of western Europe? Does he not agree that in the long term, the efforts, finance and energies that we put into the European defence and security policy can only detract from the support that we have received from the United States, particularly the NATO alliance?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman's first proposition but not with his second. There is no reason why support for NATO and support for the European defence policy need be mutually inconsistent. Indeed, as the United States has recognised in its approval of the Berlin plus arrangements, the two are complementary: by improving European defence capabilities, we are also improving the ability of European nations to contribute to NATO—something that the United States would like to see.

My right hon. Friend is of course right x2014;the US Defence Secretary supports a European security and defence policy, as does every other NATO country. In fact, the only mainstream political party within those countries that sees the ESDP as a threat to NATO is the crazy lot on the Opposition Benches. Our defence is not safe in their hands, until they give up this obsession with bashing Europe.

I am reluctant to disagree with my hon. Friend, but I am sure that there must be an obscure political party somewhere in western Europe which, having lost two general elections and had a succession of leaders, takes the same view as the British Conservatives.

On the matters that the right hon. Gentleman discussed with the American Defence Secretary, can he enlighten the House as to the progress made on the release to the United Kingdom of the full technology underpinning the joint strike fighter, and did they discuss the outcome of the Rand Europe report, which illustrated the feasibility of building that aircraft in the United Kingdom?

We certainly discussed the joint strike fighter and the importance of a full mutual exchange of information on its development. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that those discussions continue.

Will my right hon. Friend assure me that, when he meets the US Defence Secretary, he will take up with him the continuing use of British bases, so that we are absolutely clear about the Americans' future plans for those bases? In particular, we must ensure that both countries work together, rather than their not being entirely of one voice, as seemed to happen during the last conflict.

The subject of US bases in western Europe was discussed at the NATO ministerials.

If he will make a statement on the future of the surface fleet. [135549]

The Royal Navy surface fleet of the future will continue to make an effective contribution towards the United Kingdom's defence mission. We continue to modernise our armed forces in response to the changing strategic environment. The Royal Navy is receiving significant investment to enhance capabilities.

Part of that significant investment is the two carriers that form a key part not only of the fleet's future, but of the Government's expeditionary strategy, yet we are told that they are under threat. Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to make it absolutely clear that budgetary insufficiencies will not reduce the role, effectiveness or specifications of either, or both, of the new carriers?

I do not know where the hon. Gentleman gets the idea that the carriers are under threat. We have begun the third stage of the assessment phase, which is excellent news for the Royal Navy and for the USK shipbuilding industry. The programme remains on course, and the maturity of design and the capability that the carriers will deliver form part of the overall evaluation. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman awaits the next phase, reads what we have said about the current one and sees how matters develop. In terms of the naval programme, a little mature thinking on his part and that of his party would not go amiss.

I welcome that answer from my right hon. Friend. The news that this very important contract is going ahead will go a long way towards allaying some of the fears of my constituents who work in shipbuilding on the Clyde. Does he agree that through this contract and the Type 45 orders, this Government have not only established the best possible defence for the country, but given British shipbuilding, which has suffered for many years, the best possible news?

My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. In the next decade or so, the Royal Navy will take delivery of two new aircraft carriers and associated aircraft, several new assault ships, a new class of fleet submarines within the Astute class, highly deployable Type 45 destroyers, new survey ships and much improved support shipping and strategic lift capability. That is good news for the Royal Navy and the other armed forces, and for our shipbuilding industry.

Does the Minister agree that the fact that we go on renewing and replacing our surface fleet should not be news? Can he give us an indication of the costs of the carrier programme, and can he say whether the Anglo-French carriers were built to take French planes as well as British planes when in operation?

I pointed out in my earlier answer that the design relative to the capability that is required in the programme evolves, and I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be only too well aware of that. As to the relationship with the French, if we can deliver a design in which France is also interested, we can join with them to ensure that their capabilities improve to the same extent—and strength—as ours.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government have delivered the largest warship-building programme for more than 30 years? Does he also agree that the Rosyth dockyard has delivered, to high standards on cost and on time, the refit and repair of our current surface fleet, and that maintaining such skills is a vital asset to this country? Will he do his utmost to ensure, particularly with respect to the future aircraft carrier, that there is no delay to the commencement of the work that is vital to Rosyth's future?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the role of Rosyth, which has provided tremendous service to this country's armed forces, particularly the Royal Navy, over many years. I am sure that that will continue in the years ahead. I understand the concerns about the need to remain on programme in respect of the development of the carriers. All the partners involved in the design, structure and build programme will be all too well aware of the way in which the process works. I cannot give the absolute guarantee that my hon. Friend requests, but I pay tribute to the Rosyth dockyard for all the work that it has done in the past.

Is it not a fact that the size of the new aircraft carriers is going to be reduced by between a third and a half; that the number of Type 45 destroyers is going to be reduced on the planned programme; that the number of Astute submarines will be reduced; and that in future the number of Royal Fleet Auxiliary replacement vessels that are supposed to support the carriers will also be reduced? Is it not a fact that the Secretary of State told the Royal United Services Institute in June that the number of units and platforms that the armed forces had was no longer significant? That sort of spin might he acceptable in political campaigning, but it is surely unacceptable in military campaigning where our servicemen's lives are on the line.

Nice rhetoric, but rather removed from the truth. What my right hon. Friend said in his speech earlier this year was absolutely accurate. It is all about capability and effect. That is where we seek to deliver, and we define those concepts on the basis of the best military advice. Ministers do not deliver it in the way implied by the hon. Gentleman: we have to examine the size of the programme, look where the capability lies and then match the two. No Government operate any differently from that—and previous Conservative Governments, of course, operated in exactly the same way. We have to define capability in the light of the new emerging threats. We debated all that only a few days ago, and the sort of questions that the hon. Gentleman has just asked were all dealt with then.

If he will make a statement on his assessment of the current security situation in Basra. [135550]

Before answering my hon. Friend's question, I would like to express my sadness at the incident involving a United States helicopter yesterday and to send my condolences to the families of those who lost their lives.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in praising the bravery and determination of the ordinary men and women of our armed forces in Basra, who are serving in difficult circumstances which I witnessed first hand a few weeks ago? Will he assess security at Basra airport, especially the threat posed by surface-to-air missiles? When will full commercial operations start at the airport?

I thank my hon. Friend for the time he spent with our armed forces in Basra; it is much appreciated when Members of Parliament make such visits, and I know that his visit was particularly appreciated.

I join the Secretary of State in sending condolences to the families of the coalition troops killed in the recent attack on the Chinook helicopter. I also join him in congratulating the members of the British armed forces and the civilians honoured last week.

I anticipate that I can give the hon. Gentleman a list of all those who have been seriously injured if that has resulted in hospitalisation or a return to the United Kingdom, but he will recognise that many relatively minor injuries are treated on the spot and are not recorded in a way that would allow the information to be provided to him. If I may, I will write to him with the details.

The other day, when asked by a Senator how many troops were expected to be in Iraq this time next year, the US military representative—incredibly—did a tap dance instead of answering, so let me ask the Secretary of State: how many UK troops will be in Iraq this time next year, and may we have an answer and not a soft-shoe shuffle?

I am always grateful to my hon. Friend for the way in which he puts his questions and the opportunities that he affords me, but I shall certainly resist his last suggestion. To be realistic, it is difficult to speculate about precisely how many troops will be required this time next year. The security situation in parts of Iraq, especially around Baghdad, is very difficult at present. The situation elsewhere—in the south, and in the north where American forces are responsible—is encouraging and better than the pictures from in and around Baghdad might suggest. Force numbers depend on the level of security. We are working hard to improve security, to rebuild Iraq's economy and to return government of the country to the Iraqi people. We want to do that as quickly as possible, but it has to be consistent with security arrangements.

Does the Secretary of State agree with the analysis that it was a serious mistake to disband the Iraqi army, because it will have to be built from scratch to assist with security around Basra and elsewhere in Iraq?

No, I do not think that it was a serious mistake, because it would have been impossible to determine which elements of the Iraqi army were loyal to Iraq as opposed to loyal to Saddam Hussein. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, the Iraqi army was modelled on the Stalinist arrangement, whereby people who were absolutely loyal to Saddam Hussein were implanted in the upper reaches of the army, as we found in the course of military operations in Iraq. It was not a mistake to disband the army, but the hon. Gentleman is right to the extent that it is important that we rebuild that capability as quickly as possible to provide real stability and security for Iraq. That is why the training of the Iraqi army is proceeding with such dispatch.

In June, six military policemen from this country were killed in Majar-al-Kabir while training Iraqi cadets. It would be a great relief to their families, including the family of Russell Aston from Newhall in my constituency, if we had clear answers about the operational circumstances that led those military policemen to be there and the communications that occurred between British forces in the lead-up to their murder. Would it not also be greatly to the relief of those currently serving in Iraq if we could learn lessons from anything that happened on that day that would improve our operational effectiveness?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has raised this issue with me before. I recognise the concern felt by the families of those who lost their lives. I met members of most of those families during the repatriation to the United Kingdom of their loved ones' bodies, and I entirely understand their concerns.

What proposals he has to improve recruitment to those regiments that are not at full strength. [135551]

Efforts to target those regiments that are below full strength are already being made. Specific recruiting measures include financial support, use of all possible media avenues including the internet, and the continuing development of relationships with colleges and further education establishments. I expect the Army recruitment target to be achieved this year.

I thank the Minister. Will he confirm that the Army is still under strength by about 3,000 soldiers, and that the situation would be even worse if 1,560 soldiers from Fiji had not been recruited? Does he agree that those parts of the United Kingdom with geographic regiments that are fully up to strength should be encouraged to recruit more? In particular, I urge him to reinstate 3rd Battalion, the Royal Anglian Regiment as a means of helping to make up the shortfall in the Army.

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I certainly welcome the recruitment of Fijians to the British Army; they have made a significant contribution for many years, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman wants to desecrate that. [Interruption.] It is expected that Army recruitment targets will be achieved this year, and that they will be achieved the following year too.

The Minister's remarks about desecrating the Fijians will go on the record as being particularly unfortunate. The Army is actually 4,000 men under strength. Will the Minister refute press reports that he intends to put that right by cutting manning strength in the forthcoming White Paper? Will he say what he intends to do about the Territorial Army? The strategic defence review said that we need 44,000 personnel, whereas the current strength is 38,000. Anecdotally, the figure seems to be going down rather than up.

I apologise to the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell). I should have said "denigrate".

Whether he expects the future strategic tanker aircraft to be (a) crewed and (b) serviced by sponsored reserves. [135552]

The Ministry of Defence is currently assessing bids from two consortiums for the future strategic tanker aircraft project. As part of our evaluation of that potential private finance initiative contract, we are considering whether a proportion of the air and ground crew personnel could be sponsored reserves.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that comprehensive response. He must be aware that there is some concern about the future of the strategic tanker aircraft as a PFI project. Is he confident that such an aircraft could be used for air-to-air refuelling? Does he believe that such an aircraft would be secure in operation? Does he agree that sponsored reservists should not be used in the front line in any future conflict?

My hon. Friend has taken a particular interest in this matter, but I should point out that the Ministry of Defence has already awarded a number of PFI contracts that contribute to the overall operational effectiveness of our armed forces. For example, the enhancement of a strategic sealift capability through the provision of the roll-on/roll-off ferry service proved a significant success during operations in the Gulf. The concept of sponsored reserves sitting alongside a PFI project has been tried and tested, and to good effect.

If he will make a statement on the work of his Department's civil servants in Iraq. [135555]

Ministry of Defence civil servants have been supporting United Kingdom forces in Iraq since the beginning of Operation Telic. They fulfil a number of roles ranging from providing policy advice to military commanders to finance and contracts work. Scientific staff are also attached to the Iraq survey group. All civilians deployed are volunteers.

Have British civil servants in the Iraq survey group discovered anything of significant note that could possibly justify the alleged reasons for British troops being involved in the invasion of Iraq and for many of our troops remaining there?

British civil servants work alongside their American counterparts, and those of other nations, so I cannot single out their contribution. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman studies carefully the interim report made available by the Iraq survey group, he will see a number of significant elements that point to programmes of Saddam Hussein's regime developing weapons of mass destruction.

The death of American troops over the weekend has increased the domestic pressure on President Bush to reduce the civilian and military commitment by the United States to post-war Iraq. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is very important that the United States and Britain resist that pressure? What we started in Iraq, with my support, we should now finish.

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, I see no evidence that either Administration is lessening its commitment to ensure that Iraq is rebuilt, restored and becomes a rightful member of the international community with a democratic Government who are capable of providing a proper standard of security for their people.

When he expects the Typhoon to enter service. [135556]

As announced in my right hon. Friend's written statement on 30 June, Typhoon achieved type acceptance on that day. Following type acceptance, individual aircraft were due to be accepted off-contract, the first of which was expected in October. That process has been interrupted by a problem with the landing gear, and as a precaution all Typhoon flying has temporarily been suspended while the problem is investigated and resolved. Progress is being made with the investigation and we hope to be able to resume flying and the entry-to-service process shortly.

Can the Minister confirm to the House that he will be able to sign off tranche 2 of the Typhoon programme by the December deadline, or is he going to tell us that the Typhoon will not enter into service at the prescribed time or to the prescribed budget? How does the right hon. Gentleman respond to newspaper reports that he is being asked to make a 20 per cent. cut in the budget?

I thought that it was the Conservatives who were announcing 20 per cent. cuts across their programme. I also thought that their potential new leader—they may have changed again; I do not know whether they have kept this one—was indicating that he wishes to make massive cuts in programmes.

Owing to the nature of that entirely inadequate response, I wish to give notice that I intend to apply for an Adjournment debate on the subject.

If he will make a statement on the European security and defence policy. [135557]

On Monday 27 October, I set out the Government's detailed position on the European security and defence policy, when the House debated NATO and European defence policy.

Precisely—that is what the Secretary of State said in the debate last week. As it is now almost five years since the St. Malo declaration, which spawned the European security and defence policy, will the Secretary of State say which European country has increased its defence expenditure; or is it more likely that none has?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the United Kingdom has, and that is the responsibility that I have. I am grateful to him for indicating that the Government have been consistent on this issue, and it is right that I should take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) on his consistency: he has been consistently opposed to any kind of European defence co-operation. Indeed, if I understand the position correctly, the price of success for the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) is that the hon. Gentleman will soon be looking for new responsibilities.

What assessment he has made of the impact of operations in Iraq on the requirement for future equipment. [135558]

The Ministry of Defence is currently engaged in a comprehensive exercise to capture and analyse lessons from the operations in Iraq. That will include a full assessment of our equipment and any lessons that can be extracted for our future programmes. Some early indicators were identified in our "First Reflections" report, published in July, and I expect a final report on that process to be published by the end of this year.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Given that British forces used a full spectrum of war-fighting equipment in Iraq from SA80 rifles to Challenger 2 tanks, will he ensure that the lessons learned report examines the relationship between different types of equipment and forces? In particular, will he assure the House that, as we invest more time and money in network-enabled capability, lessons will be learned to ensure that our existing excellent equipment remains fully integrated into the network?

Those are two interesting questions. I can give my hon. Friend the first assurance that he seeks on the lessons learned about the balance of forces, because Operation Telic showed the importance of ensuring that we have the right capabilities in strength and depth that enable us to work alongside our allies—the United States, those in Europe, or whoever we may find ourselves working alongside. So, yes, those lessons will be learned.

Does the Minister agree that the military's ability to act and deliver in Iraq would have been severely impaired if the defence fire service had been privatised and been unable or unwilling to deliver under fire? Why has an announcement of the defence fire service privatisation been put back, and when will it take place?

I shall ponder the question again: where would an independent Scotland have been in relation to any conflict and what role would it have played in seeking to secure stability and world peace?

Now answer the question.

The hon. Gentleman asks a question about the defence fire service. An examination is currently taking place and a level playing field is in place. The public sector comparator is already showing its worth in all this, and we work closely with the trade unions as we make comparisons with the maturing bids from the consortiums that have expressed interest in a private finance initiative or public-private partnership solution. I do not have a firm date at this stage, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that delays have occurred because we are seeking to ensure best value for money for the defence budget, and I would have hoped that he agreed with that.

If he will make a statement on the level of aircraft carrier provision. [135560]

The United Kingdom's aircraft carrier capability is currently provided by three CVS class vessels. As decided in the strategic defence review, and subsequently confirmed by the new chapter, our plan is that they will be replaced by two larger and more capable CVF class vessels with target in-service dates of 2012 and 2015. The carriers will be the biggest and most powerful warships ever constructed in the UK and the most capable carrier force outside the United States.

I am grateful to the Minister of State, but I am afraid that that soothing bromide is no better for me than that which he offered a few moments ago to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). The Secretary of State for Defence told the House in January that the new aircraft carriers would

"rank alongside the most formidable and complex weapons systems deployed by any country anywhere in the world."—[Official Report, 30 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 1026.]

I hesitate to comment to the hon. Gentleman that size seems to matter to him, and I hesitate to use the word "bromide" in relation to that. In my earlier explanation, I tried to point out that that is a maturing design and capability measurement—"maturing" means getting the best capability. What the Opposition have said is that they have taken a figure given in the strategic defence review, which was between 30,000 and 40,000 tonnes for the size of the ships, against the earlier announcement, and they are now saying that that will be the size of the ships. However, we should wait and see what outcome the whole design process delivers. The truth is that the new ship will still be two and a half times the size of the current carrier—a formidable aircraft carrier capability, alongside that which will be delivered from its decks.

If he will make a statement on the impact on his Department and its agencies of adopting the resource accounting system. [135561]

In the current financial year, 2003–04, the Ministry of Defence completed the change to full resource accounting and budgeting from the old budgeting system, after a transitional period from April 2001 to March 2003. Resource budgeting uses accruals-based principles to plan and control spending. The introduction of resource accounting and budgeting has been a major change programme in its own right. With its huge and diverse asset base worth some £86 billion, the Ministry of Defence has been particularly affected by the move to full resource accounting and budgeting. That has raised issues such as how quickly it might use resources released by reducing the asset base to fund other priorities. As I indicated to the House on 16 October at columns 280–81, factors such as that and exchange rate fluctuations have led to a requirement to make some adjustments to ensure that the MOD continues to operate within its budget.

I thank my right hon. Friend, a lawyer, for giving me the accountant's answer. I want to deal with the perhaps unintended consequences of introducing the policy in three particular areas. I would like to know whether revaluations of assets have led to or are likely to lead to reductions in acquisition spend; whether there has been an effect in relation to stock reductions, in terms of the ability to respond when there is a point of conflict; and whether the political consequences are properly understood by the bean counters of both the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury. It seems to me that if we are not careful we will end up understanding the price but not the real value of our industrial policy, our political intentions and the operational safety and capacity of our armed services. I would like some assurances on those matters.

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for taking such a serious interest in what is obviously a vital issue not only for the Ministry of Defence but right across government. I want to remonstrate with him for his suggestion that lawyers are somehow more interesting than accountants. Clearly, there would be a great debate about that. Although I know on which side of the argument I would fall, I recognise that there is a great deal to be said for accountants, particularly when they determine the MOD's considerable budget. Although my hon. Friend comments on the political implications of this, I am confident that we have taken them fully into account.