When he expects to make an announcement on the awarding of the contract for the future strategic tanker. [143767]

The Department is currently considering bids from two consortiums for the future strategic tanker aircraft project. We plan to make a decision on that complex and important private finance initiative competition as soon as possible in the new year.

Following reports in The Independent on Sunday yesterday that the RAF may be forced to share its aircraft for the future strategic tanker requirements with air forces from other nations, may I ask the Minister what effects that will have on the RAF's requirements? Will he now admit that his own Department's defence is in a terrible crisis as a result of the mismanagement of the British economy, and that the RAF is suffering as a result?

I am sometimes surprised at the tone of questions based on press speculation. A major procurement process is under way for the RAF, involving not just the FSTA but Typhoon and the joint strike fighter. The FSTA could be the MOD's largest and most complex PFI contract, and I should have thought that he would have welcomed that, as it is not only undoubtedly good news for the RAF but potentially good news for British industry as well.

It is welcome news to hear that we expect the announcement in the new year, but can we ensure that it is made very early in the new year, as so many jobs in the north-west depend on it, whichever way the contract goes? I hope that the Treasury will not become involved. Let us get on with deciding who will get the job, and let us get the jobs to the north-west.

People across the Government have to be involved in such major procurement programmes, as I am sure my hon. Friend will understand. Indeed, he has probably precipitated some engagement from other Departments by the type of lobbying in which he so assiduously involves himself—usually campaigning for one side of a project. It is right that the Government consider this across the board. We have to ensure that the policy is right—not just financially but in terms of quality jobs—and, ultimately, in this case, that it is right for the RAF as well.

If he will make a statement on the security situation in southern Iraq. [143770]

I hold regular discussions on a range of issues related to operations in Iraq with military commanders and Government officials from the United Kingdom and, indeed, other countries. The protection of Iraqi and international military and security forces and, indeed, civilians is of paramount importance. Although in recent weeks there has been a decline in the number of security incidents in Iraq, following a peak of incidents in November, the security situation remains challenging. The vast majority of attacks occur in a certain area to the north and west of Baghdad. We obviously hope that particular events there over the weekend will lead to a reduction in the number of those attacks.

We must all hope that the arrest of Saddam Hussein improves the security situation and does not make matters worse. May I return the Secretary of State to the National Audit Office report on equipment, because he rather glossed over it on Thursday? Yes, our troops are doing a superb job and a massive logistics exercise took place to equip our troops, but the fact remains that essential kit to keep our troops safe was not, and perhaps is not, available to them when they need it. Can he assure me that troops stationed in Iraq have all the kit that they need to be safe and that he is learning lessons and bringing forward plans to improve the situation?

That is precisely what I have told the House. It is precisely what I told the Defence Committee. It is precisely what the Government reported to the House last Thursday, when we published our own lessons learned paper and it is precisely what the NAO report also says.

My right hon. Friend referred in his initial answer to the political timetable. I appreciate that, in such a fast-moving situation, it is difficult to predict a week in advance, let alone six months in advance, but if we are to see a transition to democracy as quickly as possible in Iraq, which we all desire, a great deal of preparation will have to be done in advance of any election in compiling the equivalent of electoral registers and so on. Has my right hon. Friend given any specific consideration to the kind of protection that can be afforded to observers and those people who will be the agents of democracy who will go out now and in the six months ahead to make all the preparation necessary for a smooth—and I hope peaceful—transition to democracy?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations. He is right that the reason why we judge it necessary to continue our security presence is to ensure that the transition can be as smooth as possible. I made it clear that we do not want British or other coalition forces to remain in Iraq for a day longer than necessary but, equally, we will not abandon the Iraqi people. We have obligations to ensure that they can take responsibility for their affairs, and the sooner they are able to do that safely and securely, the better.

Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in congratulating the fourth infantry division on its brilliant coup in the capture of Saddam Hussein? Will he confirm to the House Saddam Hussein's exact status? As Saddam Hussein has been categorised as a prisoner of war, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that, under the terms of the Geneva convention, he can be properly interrogated?

I certainly add my congratulations on what was a brilliant coalition effort by both military and intelligence forces on the ground in Iraq. As far as Saddam Hussein's present status is concerned, he is held under terms that are consistent with the Geneva conventions and international law.

May I press the right hon. Gentleman further on the NAO report? He gave robust and confident assurances on the Floor of the House and to the Defence Committee on the adequacy of combat supplies, which turned out in some cases not to be correct. In the light of the NAO report, which praises the brilliant triumph of British forces in Iraq, yet highlights several wholly unacceptable and grievous failings in the supply of vital equipment—including the supply of insufficient quantities of body armour—does he think that he might inadvertently have misled the House on those matters? If so, should he not reflect on his position?

No, and no, and I have just given the answer to a previous question about the NAO report. Everything that I said was absolutely consistent with its conclusions. I am disappointed that right hon. and hon. Members have simply dealt with the detail rather than the overwhelming success.[Interruption.] Well, I think this is an important point. The NAO reports to the House and it reported a balanced conclusion. I made it clear to the House and the Select Committee that there were difficulties. However, it is important to look at the report's conclusions, not least on the logistic point. One of its key conclusions is:

"The logistic effort for the Operation was huge and key to success."

Given the outstanding success of the capture of Saddam Hussein at the weekend, will my right hon. Friend tell me whether that will make the security situation in southern Iraq better or worse?

All that I can say is what I said earlier. Obviously we hope that those who have supported Saddam so far will end their support and recognise that we are all engaged in a determined effort to rebuild Iraq. The scenes of celebration by Iraqi people once they had learned the news of Saddam Hussein's capture is testament to that, but we must recognise that there will still be elements— not only those in Iraq but others who enter the country—who will continue the campaign against coalition forces. They have to be defeated.

Is the Secretary of State saying to the House that it is a matter of detail that although part of the Government's premise for sending British forces into the war was that this country was at threat from nuclear, chemical or biological attack, troops were sent into theatre without protection from that?

That is precisely the kind of detail that I was complaining about a few moments ago. If the hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to find the answer to his questions before raising them in such a spurious way, he would know that British forces were properly protected and that every British soldier had a chemical protection suit available to him. If the hon. Gentleman checked his facts rather than issuing press releases, it might be better for him and, indeed, the party that he tries to represent.

Whatever happens now, is not the capture of such a notorious mass murderer, Saddam, a victory for humanity? Is it not the case that had he been captured by some Iraqis rather than the Americans, his life might well have been ended immediately, which is what happened to Mussolini in 1945?

I am sure that the Iraqis would also have respected the principles of international law.

Perhaps I can ask a general question. As the Secretary of State has just announced that he is sending another battalion—the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders—and two platoons of police to train Iraqi security forces, does he accept that it was a mistake to disband the Iraqi army when the coalition forces took power in Iraq, as evidenced not only by this additional deployment of troops, but by the fact that the troops already there have to deal with demonstrations by those very soldiers about their pensions and the administration of them?

I do not accept that. Not disbanding the army might have produced a very short-term benefit, but the reality is that no one had confidence in the army, especially in relation to the extent to which it was still loyal to Saddam Hussein. Beginning again, with accelerated retraining—the purpose of deploying the additional forces—will give us a set of security forces across Iraq in which everyone has confidence. When the hon. Gentleman thinks about it, I am sure he will agree with that.

What progress he has made in his review of the RAF active combat service support units. [143771]

The review is progressing well and is expected to conclude in the new year.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that an early conclusion of the review might be that the value of the communications and logistics units under review has not been appreciated as fully as it should have been by those at the highest levels of the RAF? Will he accept from me that the emerging conclusion is that instead of shuffling units around from camp to camp, we might do better to invest in their training, their equipment and—as I have suggested in other questions over the past two years—their living accommodation? Does he understand how strongly people in Stafford feel about the future of RAF Stafford? Would it be possible for me to bring a delegation from all parties in Stafford borough to see the Minister to discuss the matter while the review is taking place?

The answer to the latter question is yes. My hon. Friend knows that I am only too willing to meet people to discuss those key important matters, but clearly the same invitation would have to be extended to all other bases covered by the review. My understanding is that all MPs who have an immediate interest have been fully consulted either in writing or by being given access to station commanders so that they are brought up to speed on the evolving review as it develops. It is important to do that. There are big issues involved. My hon. Friend touched on the importance of support units, which are vital to what the RAF does. That is why we need to consider the basing strategy to ensure that we are utilising what is undoubtedly a key resource to the best effect.

Does the Minister agree that bases such as Royal Air Force Stafford not only contribute to the local economy, but provide an important contribution to the national military footprint? On the wider issue of logistics—if I may trouble him with a matter of detail—is he not embarrassed by the NAO report's findings that

"Existing operational stock levels were, in many instances, not sufficient for readiness and sustainability"?

rose—

Hand it over.

I was going to hand it over. It is clear that the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) has not read some very specific comments, both detailed and overall. The report said that, overall, UK equipment performed impressively. It said that

"the Department's major equipments … contributed significantly to overall military capability and the success of the Operation",

"For any required level of readiness, a balance has to be struck between having people and equipment ready to go immediately and make good shortfalls in the time available."

How he will ensure that all Suez veterans are awarded their medals. [143772]

I said to the House on 8 September that I expected some Suez medals to be with veterans for Remembrance Sunday. Nine hundred such medals were sent to veterans directly—as are all medals following their application and approval. I can now further update the House. As at 12 December, the medal offices had received 27,192 applications, and 2,011 Suez medals have so far been dispatched to veterans or their next of kin.

I thank my hon. Friend for that full answer. The steady uptake in the collection of the awards is testimony to the fact that no longer can Suez veterans be referred to as the forgotten army. Has he any estimate of how many people may be entitled to claim a medal for their work and for the ultimate sacrifice that many made in the campaign?

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. The estimate of the possible number of veterans who can qualify is about 200,000 consisting of 25,000 from the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, 55,000 from the RAF and 120,000 from the Army. In reality, it is unlikely that anywhere near that number of applications will be made, and certainly not in the short term. However, to cope with the applications that are expected, we have set up a special medal office at the Army medal office at Droitwich to deal with the applications.

If he will make a statement on the future of the defence fire service. [143773]

Options for the modernisation of the defence fire services were examined in "Fire Study 2000". The results of that study informed the airfield support services project, which will identify the most cost-effective way of providing a range of services, including fire cover. Bids are being evaluated against the public sector comparator and I intend to decide the way forward in the first half of next year.

Does my hon. Friend agree with those senior officers in our armed forces who argue to me and others that they regard the defence fire service as part of a core military function that should not be privatised but kept in the public sector, particularly given that its members are currently risking their lives serving in Iraq?

My hon. Friend has raised these points before. It has been explained to him that the in-house option has been given much support and much encouragement because we want to ensure that there is a level playing field. The importance of the points that he raises about the capabilities of the defence fire service and other matters that could be affected by the review must be taken into account. We must then consider whether we use sponsored reserves or the current process. That is why the process has taken so long. We want to make sure that we get things right because of the critical nature of the services that are supplied both through the defence fire service and all the supply services on airfields.

Does the Minister agree with the Transport and General Workers Union that cost savings sought by privatisation could be achieved while keeping the defence fire service as a truly accountable public body in the public sector? He mentioned "Fire Study 2000", so will he confirm that it identified room for 20 per cent. efficiencies? How much taxpayers' money would have been saved to date if "Fire Study 2000" had been implemented?

I hesitate to disagree with the Transport and General Workers Union, as I have been a member for the past 28 years or so, and proudly remain one. However, that does not mean that its analysis is always correct. The TGWU, along with other unions, was fully consulted on that project and review and is helping to develop the public sector comparator. As I mentioned earlier, it has been given full support to achieve that. It would be wrong not to express the thought that always goes through my head when the hon. Gentleman asks questions. Would we have an air force under an independent Scotland? Indeed, would we have a defence fire service under an independent Scotland? He wants to rip out and destroy the success, quality and strength of the British armed forces and go into an unknown future.

If he will make a statement on compensation for civilian prisoners of the Japanese in the second world war. [143774]

In November 2000, the Government instituted a scheme to make ex gratia payments of £10,000 each to members of certain groups held captive by the Japanese during the second world war. Among those covered by the scheme are British civilian internees who had a close connection with the United Kingdom at the time of their captivity. So far, 1,876 payments have been made to former civilian internees, and a considerable number to the surviving spouses of those who died before 7 November 2000.

While I acknowledge the generous scheme that my hon. Friend outlined, a small number of people have been excluded because their grandparents or parents were not born in the UK. They were British enough to be interned by the Japanese, but it seems that they are not British enough to receive the compensation to which they are morally, if not legally, entitled. Two of my constituents, Mr. Abraham and Mrs. Sopher, are among the 324 such people resident in the UK. Will my hon. Friend meet Mr. Ron Bridge of ABCIFER—the Association of British Civilian Internees Far East Region—which lobbies on behalf of those people to discuss a way forward and see if anything can be done to help those who have been left out of that generous scheme?

May I congratulate my hon. Friend on his campaigning on this issue? He, like me, knows that the legal process undertaken by ABCIFER has come to an end. I have seen his letter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of 3 December, and I can assure him that a detailed reply will be on its way very shortly.

Sadly, Members on both sides of the House have to write to the widows of that dwindling number of the old and bold or attend their funerals. Those widows feel after many years that they have been let down, in all honesty by Governments of all political persuasions. Would the Minister consider at the very least meeting his hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), me and others who are seeking to represent the interests of that small band of people so that we can discuss a proper way forward?

I have told my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) that I would be happy to meet him if there are outstanding issues or new matters that he or other Members want to discuss. That offer still stands.

What discussions he has had with NATO partners on allied support for the future security of Iraq. [143775]

NATO support for Iraq's future security was raised at the NATO defence ministerial meeting on 1 December. The alliance continues to support Poland in its leadership of a multi-national division in Iraq and will review NATO's contribution to the stabilisation efforts on a regular basis.

Many Labour Members were very reluctant to support military action without the full support of the United Nations. That was not possible, but will my right hon. Friend assure me now that he will do all he can to secure maximum support for the peacekeeping process from the UN and from NATO members?

As I have said, UN Security Council resolution 1511, adopted unanimously on 16 October, gives UN authorisation to a multinational force and a unified command. Some 30 countries are already contributing military forces, and it is entirely right for the coalition to explore all the options for broadening the overall force. As was stated in the United States-United Kingdom declaration of 20 November, we hope that international partners will participate increasingly in the multinational force, regardless of earlier differences.

When the Secretary of State briefs his opposite numbers among our NATO allies, will he explain to them something of the contradiction between the supplies of equipment furnished to British troops in Iraq and the assurances he has given to the House and the Select Committee on Defence? In particular, will he explain why the NAO found that 200,000 sets of body armour had gone missing, having been issued during the years since 1999? Will he also explain why it is not enough to say—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is well out of order.

If he will make a statement on the Type 45 destroyer orders. [143777]

Type 45 will be the biggest and most capable class of air defence destroyers ever built for the Royal Navy, and will be equipped to carry out a range of other tasks. Six ships are on order with the prime contractor BAE Systems, providing stability for the shipbuilding work force on the Clyde and at the new Vosper Thornycroft facility at Portsmouth for the remainder of the decade. The programme is in full production against a mature design—a first for a United Kingdom warship project at this stage of its development.

I thank my right hon. Friend, but that is not quite the full answer that I wanted. Another six type 45 destroyers will be coming along following a second order, but rumours abound on the Clyde—especially in my local yard, Scotstoun—that there is to be a cut of a further six, down to only two. Could my right hon. Friend comment on that? The ships that are, we hope, to be built will mean an awful lot to people on the Clyde.

My hon. Friend should encourage the Clyde work force. I am prepared to meet the trade unions if necessary, to dissuade them from listening to rumours and urge them to concentrate on what the project holds for them.

One problem with a defence White Paper that is virtually a fact-free zone is that speculation can flourish. There is speculation that the number of Type 45 orders will be well below the original concept of 12, and that the Government are actively considering phasing out several surface ships in the near future. Can the Minister quell that speculation now?

There are two speculations there. The decommissioning of ships is always part of the ongoing process of any re-examination of future needs; the hon. Gentleman, and the House, will have to wait for our conclusions.

I call Bob Russell. He is not here. I call Chris Grayling.

What targets he has set for personnel levels in the Army in each of the next five years. [143779]

The current requirement for the Army is 106,730 personnel. The Department's target is to achieve manning balance by the end of 2005 and to maintain it thereafter.

I am grateful for that response. Can the Minister tell us whether any recruitment freezes are operating in the armed forces?

Yes, I can. There are none.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the targets will be easier to achieve if we avoid the sort of false rumour that spread in the run-up to the White Paper's publication? Does he agree that such rumours about the future of the Army, especially our regiments, damage recruitment and morale?

I could not agree more. Recruitment is proving difficult in some areas of the country. That is not because of lack of determination by Army recruiters or the recruitment teams in other parts of the armed forces. We are keen to build our strength in all areas. That is why I answered the earlier question about recruitment by saying that there was no freeze.

Does the Minister agree that the public would not understand how one could possibly afford to have fewer regular soldiers while regularly having to call up reservists?

Is the hon. Gentleman looking for a compliment? I thought that he would have prefaced his question with "Sir" because I am used to being called that by members of our armed forces. It is a mark of respect, but I acknowledge that that is not forthcoming from him today.

In the light of the Minister's reply and the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, does the Minister anticipate a further broadening of the military footprint, especially as regards the Army? That would almost certainly help with recruitment and maintaining personnel targets. In the light of the highly successful relocation of the 1st Battalion the Welsh Guards to RAF St. Athan, will he shortly make an announcement on further units coming to that site?

If my hon. Friend is not fighting for the future of the Defence Aviation Repair Agency, he is fighting for more of the British Army to be based at St. Athan.

The whole House will wish to commiserate with the 3rd Battalion the Liberal Democrats, commanded by the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), who arrived just too late to ask his question. In military matters, that can be disastrous.

Order.

I was expecting the hon. Gentleman to go on a bit, so that he would be ruled out of order, as the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) was. The question of "boots on the ground", as the hon. Gentleman and Lord Inge put it, is mentioned in the White Paper and is clearly understood. As I said, we plan to continue to grow to meet the figure of 106,730 personnel: that is what we are seeking to achieve. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman heard my comments about people who are speculating, thereby perhaps creating unrest and affecting morale unnecessarily. The armed forces will not be used as a political football by Labour Members, because that diminishes those who do it.

What measures his Department has introduced to promote security in the UK area of operations in Iraq. [143780]

United Kingdom forces continue to provide an effective security capability in Iraq. Recent operations against smuggling, for example, have been a considerable success and were widely welcomed by the Iraqi people. Our forces are also closely engaged in developing Iraq's own security capabilities, so that Iraqis can increasingly take responsibility for their own security. Already, more than 10,500 Iraqi police are on patrol in the multinational division, south-east, and more are being trained. Other Iraqi security personnel are guarding vital infrastructure, key facilities and the coastline.

Although yesterday's announcement of the capture of Saddam Hussein was widely welcomed, it is recognised that attacks on coalition forces will continue. Many of those attacks will be organised by groups and individuals from outside Iraq. Can my right hon. Friend assure us that the utmost is being done to prevent those individuals from entering Iraq, and that British personnel in southern Iraq have the equipment that they need to protect themselves against such attacks?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations. Certainly, a vital part of the training for Iraqi security forces is the development of a dedicated border police force—some 5,500 are now trained for that purpose. Their job is vital, as my right hon. Friend the Minister said. It is also important that we receive effective co-operation from the countries that neighbour Iraq—indeed, we are continuing to press them for assistance.

What impact has the withdrawal from Iraq of UN agencies and other humanitarian organisations had on the post-war reconstruction and development of the country? What conversations has my right hon. Friend had with the UN and other organisations about the security situation and when it will allow them to return?

Not all non-governmental organisations have completely withdrawn from Iraq. Indeed, we continue to have conversations with the organisations and their representatives on the ground to try to ensure their safety and security sufficiently to allow them to return to Iraq to do the valuable work necessary for the rebuilding of the country. We have always regarded this as a partnership involving, first and foremost, the Iraqi people, the coalition forces who provide security, and, crucially, the non-governmental organisations, which play a vital role in reconstruction in any peacekeeping operation. Therefore, we want to see them back in Iraq and working flat out to create the conditions in which the Iraqis can assume responsibility for their own affairs.

What impact operations in Iraq have had on the future requirement for equipment. [143781]

Operation Telic reinforced the requirement to be able to deploy and to sustain armed forces equipped and trained for both war fighting and peace support operations. Operations in Iraq have also demonstrated the importance of integrated joint capability. Those trends are reflected in the White Paper published last week.

I would like to ask my right hon. Friend two questions about future technology and proven technology. First, stand-off weapons, particularly precision guided munitions, seem to have been successful in Operation Telic. What is being done to build them into future programmes for development? Secondly, in relation to force protection, I was surprised to learn that there were no dedicated medical evacuation helicopters at work in Iraq. I would like such proven technologies to be available to protect troops, particularly in the golden hour following any injuries, and to be built into any future requirements.

My hon. Friend raises two important points. While we look to the future, however, we must remember the impact of the present. We have recognised the importance of precision guided munitions for some time, and the planning and assessment relating to them were reflected in last week's White Paper. He rightly pointed to the successful use of weapons such as Paveway and Storm Shadow in the Iraq campaign, and we shall continue to make the acquisition of weapons of that capability a priority in our equipment programme.

I am grateful to the Minister for outlining the future equipment requirement. Anyone who has been in a war understands that the logistics will always have hiccups and that the details will not always be right, but will he assure us that there will not be a repeat of the experience of my constituent who told me the other day that he went into battle without ammunition for his rifle? Will the Minister assure me that that will never happen again?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his general point. He correctly recognises that the logistics even of small-scale conflicts can sometimes go wrong, for a variety of reasons. We have to put in place a comprehensive and intensive analysis of the lessons learned, so that we can avoid those difficulties recurring. I would be grateful if he wrote to me on the specific issue that he raised, and I shall try to get him a more specific answer on it. I am concerned, as he is, about the nature of that matter, but I need to know more about it before I can answer his question.

What progress has been made on increasing security in Afghanistan. [143782]

We have been working with the international community to extend the international security assistance force beyond Kabul and to widen the provincial reconstruction team programme. Our own team in Mazar-e-Sharif has been actively supporting United Nations and Afghan transitional authority initiatives to improve security, such as negotiating ceasefires between rival militia forces and placing their heavy weaponry under the control of the Afghan national army. Our contribution to ISAF continues to promote a safe and secure environment in Kabul. Finally, we remain active in our support for security sector reform.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the activities of the British, especially in connection with the programme that he has just outlined. However, does he accept that, overall, there is a deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan, with the targeted killings of 15 aid workers and attacks on the United Nations, which have rendered one third of that country out of bounds to both? In that context, what assistance in security is being given to the electoral registration office of the United Nations, which has to accomplish in just eight months an electoral registration process that took it eight years to achieve in Cambodia?

I do not pretend that the security situation in Afghanistan is ideal, but we are making progress. That is why we have put in place the provincial reconstruction teams, why the UK has been so heavily engaged, and why we have encouraged the maturation of that process and encouraged other countries to take such initiatives. We must move beyond Kabul and try to extend the areas of relative calm, recognising at all times that there are clear threats out there. My hon. Friend asked about protection for a specific programme. I do not have that information to hand, but I will obtain it and write to her. If it is an area where we have direct responsibility, I am sure that we are doing all we can. It is crucial to the democratic process, and it is where the future of Afghanistan lies, as is clear to anyone who has listened to President Karzai in the past few days talking about the future of his country. We must make sure that that programme and that process move forward unfettered, as far as that can be achieved. I will get more details about that for my hon. Friend and write to her.

What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on the provision of good schools for forces families; and if he will make a statement. [143783]

There is frequent contact between officials from the Department for Education and Skills and the Ministry of Defence in order to discuss the issues faced by schools with children from the service population, and to ensure that the provision meets their educational requirements. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the supporting essay on people published in support of the White Paper last Thursday, which includes further comment on the ongoing discussions between the Departments at all levels of Government.

Does the Minister agree that schools with a high proportion of children from forces families face particular pressures? Is he aware that, at the Gateway school in Carterton in my constituency, next to RAF Brize Norton, where about 80 per cent. of the children are from forces families, about 45 per cent. of those turned over to different schools last year? As the number of missions has increased and the number of personnel remains static, the position is likely to get worse. Will the Minister speak to the Department for Education and Skills about special funding for those schools? Surely that is the least our armed forces deserve.

The Ministry of Defence has established a schools liaison policy in the area to which the hon. Gentleman refers. That is to ensure regular contact between the services, schools, parents and the local education authority. I expect that that would be the most appropriate forum for those discussions. I am, of course, aware of the changes coming to Brize Norton. They were the subject of an Adjournment debate initiated by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) on 15 July, when we laid out the Government's policy on the matter.

I agree with the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron). Is the Minister aware that discussions are one thing, and delivery is another? Earlier this year, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills visited Colchester and promised the head teachers of schools with a large component of children from military families that more money would be forthcoming. When will that be delivered?

I was tempted to say, "Better late than never" to the hon. Gentleman. Following the visit of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, there have been more discussions about the matter in relation to the Colchester garrison.

If he will make a statement on joint working with the US Administration on veterans' affairs. [143784]

I visited the United States last month where I met the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs in the American Administration, Secretary Principi. We agreed that there should be greater co-operation between Governments on the issues.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the initiative. Will he go into more detail about the discussions and tell us whether further meetings are planned?

The discussions between the US and the UK centre on increasing co-operation to involve Veterans Affairs Ministers of Australia, New Zealand and Canada in a ministerial-level meeting. That will be an important opportunity to develop veterans' affairs with the United States and across the Commonwealth.

if he will make a statement on the number of operational main battle tanks. [143787]

Challenger 2 performed excellently in operations in Iraq earlier this year and continues to play a valuable role there. Sufficient Challenger 2 tanks are available to meet our operational and high-readiness requirements. Force recuperation continues according to plan.

Given that the National Audit Office report praised the speed with which the MOD and British forces deployed Challenger 2 tanks to the Gulf and that many commanders have praised the tank as a battle-winning asset in Iraq and Afghanistan, is not the change to light scales the wrong decision, taken at the wrong time?

Challenger 2 is not disappearing, and it is not a question of converting all heavy tanks to medium and light; there will be a mixture. The hon. Gentleman is right about the NAO's analysis of how the tanks performed, how they were maintained in the field and how the tank commanders and all who worked alongside them delivered such a key element in that military campaign. There will still be a need for the heavy component, so I do not accept the premise of his question—that the decision we are envisaging, as set out in the White Paper, is wrong. I believe it to be fundamentally correct and a view that is held within the tank regiments and elsewhere. They recognise that the threat is changing and that we must have a better balance and provision to be able to meet emerging threats as well as existing ones.

What the implications of the Defence White Paper are for the Eurofighter. [143788]

The defence White Paper sets out our intention to deploy capabilities right across the range of air operations. Typhoon can be employed in multiple roles and will have the built-in flexibility to adapt its role in an environment where the threat is developing and changing.

I invite the Secretary of State to answer the question that I put to him on Thursday. How many Typhoons can we expect at RAF Leeming? Will they come in on the date that he announced and in the same numbers as originally ordered?

As I made clear in the White Paper, we are considering the numbers of combat aircraft, such as Typhoon and the joint strike fighter, to meet anticipated future capability requirements. The UK is party to international arrangements, under which we are set to order 232 Typhoons. Fifty-five aircraft are already on order and we are working towards an order for the second trariche of 89. The third and final order is not due to be placed before 2007 and we will keep our requirements under continual review during that time. On current planning, RAF Leeming will be the second base for Typhoon, after RAF Coningsby and before RAF Leuchars. On current plans, I anticipate the aircraft arriving at the station around 2007.

If he will make a statement on the future of the Western European Union. [143791]

In November 2000, the Council of the Western European Union at Marseilles agreed a number of measures designed to address the consequences for the WEU of the changes under way, particularly the evolution of European security and defence policy.

Is the Secretary of State aware that I used to wonder about the role of the Western European Union? Now that I am a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the WEU, I do see that it has a potential role, but the matter does need more debate and discussion. Will he or one of his Ministers agree to meet the British delegation to the WEU to discuss further a greater and expanding role for that important institution?

I emphasise that the Government share my right hon. Friend's determination to travel widely and extensively throughout Europe, so we entirely accept the need to consider further how to improve the arrangements for collective oversight of areas of EU activity, including ESDP. We are very grateful for his contribution, on behalf of the European taxpayer.