If he will make a statement on the implications of the defence White Paper for Army training requirements. [150153]

Following the publication of the White Paper in December, detailed work is now under way to redesign the Army's training requirements. That will underpin the changes that will be needed in the future. Our current assumptions are that the Army will continue to train for war in all potential environments, and that training will be based on the existing facilities in the UK and overseas.

I congratulate the Minister and his colleagues on the White Paper, which I broadly welcome. Some of my constituents, however— particularly those at the Bovington armour centre and the gunnery ranges in Lulworth—are concerned about it, given the conversion of one of the heavy armoured regiments to a light armoured regiment. Can the Minister give them any reassurance about Bovington's future?

My hon. Friend is right—the White Paper does mention the conversion of two brigades to medium and light structures. Such changes, however, would not affect the total throughput of training in the armour centre in his constituency. Indeed, because of the unique range of facilities offered by the Bovington garrison, it will remain a centre of excellence for the delivery of training to our armed forces.

The White Paper rightly emphasises the revolution in military affairs and the importance of technological advance rather than numbers, but does the Minister accept that when it comes to peacekeeping duties in particular, Army training must reflect the fact that large numbers of people need to be on the ground for such operations?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the facilities for training in the United Kingdom are there, and that we will continue to use them for the purposes of the main training environment that I have described.

Am I not right to be concerned—and is my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) not right to be concerned—about the availability of infantry training facilities, particularly on and around Salisbury plain? If the infantry is to be downgraded, surely there will be much less of a requirement for infantry training in such areas as Warminster. Can the Minister give us an absolute assurance that infantry training in and around Wiltshire will not be downgraded?

I want to put the record straight—there is no downgrading of the infantry. Over the past five or six years we have invested heavily in our training facilities, some of which I have seen recently at Catterick, and we will continue to do so.

What efforts the Government are making to promote the Hawk 128 advanced jet trainer for the international export market. [150154]

The Government are committed, through the Defence Export Services Organisation, to supporting the legitimate efforts of British industry to export defence equipment overseas. The Hawk advanced jet trainer is no exception, and we are pleased to be supporting industry with the sale of the Hawk to the Government of India.

The announcement in July that the Government were to choose the Hawk trainer was excellent news for my constituents who work at BAE Systems in Brough. Does not the long-awaited decision by the Indian Government vindicate my right hon. Friend's decision, and does it not also demonstrate that this is still the trainer aircraft of choice throughout the world?

I thank my hon. Friend for her comments and for her consistent support for what was undoubtedly a difficult decision. I know that her constituents who work at Brough will have reason to be grateful to her for all those efforts. She is right that the Hawk trainer is the aircraft of choice for a number of countries around the world. I hope that the Indian Government's expressed wish to purchase the aircraft will set a precedent for a number of other countries that have already shown an interest.

After the permanent secretary to the Ministry of Defence made known his objections to the UK Hawk jet contract on the ground that it represented poor value for money, did he say whether exports would change the balance of advantage? If so, how many Hawks will have to be exported to turn the contract into good value for money?

It was an excellent decision for UK manufacturing. I seem to recall the hon. Gentleman saying that it should not be for the United Kingdom Government to promote export sales of defence equipment throughout the world. I look forward to his saying that around the country on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, when he will see the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people who risk losing their jobs because of his policies.

Will the Secretary of State assure us that there is no danger of any Hawk aircraft that are sold anywhere in the world being converted into combat aircraft and used to mount campaigns against insurgents, which happened in East Timor and is reported to be happening in Indonesia? Is he confident that the end-user certificate system actually works and is properly monitored by British officials?

The aircraft are of course training aircraft, and the United Kingdom operates the most rigorous and transparent export licensing arrangements of any country in the world

From the right hon. Gentleman's time in the European Parliament, has he formed a view on the potential benefits—especially for collaborative international projects in which British Aerospace is involved—of using the European budget line of joint Export Credits Guarantee Department cover?

The hon. Lady left the European Parliament more recently than I, so no doubt she has greater familiarity with the precise details of its budgetary arrangements. I assure her that we look for collaboration and partners in all such projects, not least because the investment required today to bring forward a hi-tech piece of equipment such as an advanced jet trainer means that there is a clear benefit to having more than one partner.

What measures he is taking to improve education and training for the armed forces. [150155]

Training and education make a vital contribution to our armed forces' operational capability. The 2001 defence training review identified more than 200 recommendations for improvement, which are now being taken forward. This includes the rationalisation of certain specialist training and the exploitation of new technology to enable the widespread introduction of e-learning throughout our armed forces. In support of the wider Government learning agenda, we have also developed programmes to improve the basic skills of our people in literacy, numeracy and communications technology. As far as possible, we also seek to ensure that our training and education is accredited to nationally recognised qualifications.

I am grateful for that reply, but will the Minister explain to the House what progress is being made to make training, skills and qualifications earned in the armed forces match more closely those that would be earned in civilian life, so that when the time comes people have a smooth and easy transfer back to civilian life?

My hon. Friend makes an interesting observation. The Ministry of Defence is one of the largest training organisations in the United Kingdom and it is important to maximise the return on the investment that we make in our people. One of the ways in which we have been able to do that is through Skillforce, which uses those who leave our armed forces to educate and train youngsters in 23 pilot areas throughout the United Kingdom who would otherwise not get such support for their education.

The Minister will be aware that last year more than 90 per cent. of field training exercises had to be cancelled and that many career development courses were not taken up because of overstretch. Will he tell the House how he intends to ensure that battle-winning skills are not blunted any further?

Of course we are learning the lessons of what went on last year, in terms of not only Operation Telic but Operation Fresco, with which the hon. Gentleman will be familiar. All those issues are important so that we can ensure that our armed forces are in the right frame of mind with the right training and development for the future.

My hon. Friend is right to praise the armed forces and their education. There has been a tremendous improvement in the way in which they have linked up and made that compatible with the civilian force outside our industry. What is he doing to ensure that we get real value for money for the training that we put into the forces by securing retention, which is a vital element?

One of the important aspects of retention is ensuring that we have the right accreditation for members of our armed forces after they have completed their training and skills. That is why it is important to have transferable skills that increase the confidence of individuals in our armed forces and make them the credit that they are to our nation.

Can the Minister assure me that the training facilities at Suffield in Alberta will be adequately financed so that our troops can go to operations of war with proper large-scale unit training under their belts before they arrive?

The hon. and learned Gentleman may have heard my answer on the heavy investment that we have made in our training facilities. That applies equally to the camp he mentions, which I understand was part of the Saif Sareea operation in 2002.

What assessment he has made of equipment provision in relation to Operation Telic. [150156]

The Ministry of Defence's report on Operation Telic, "Lessons for the Future", closely reflects the conclusions of the independent report by the National Audit Office that

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

"key equipments…performed well".

It has been suggested that Sergeant Roberts might not have been killed in action in Iraq had he been wearing enhanced combat body armour. I know that that matter concerns my right hon. Friend and is under inquiry. When was such equipment first procured for the armed forces? How many sets have been issued?

The version of enhanced combat body armour currently being used by the armed forces was first put into service as long ago as 1992, when approximately 32 pairs of ceramic plates were issued. Two sets of plates are required for each soldier. Those issuing enhanced combat body armour issued plates consistently in the order of 4,000 for each year of operation until 1999, when some 22,000—almost 23,000—were issued. Most recently, in 2003, more than 80,000 pairs of ceramic plates were issued.

The Secretary of State will be aware that the regimental headquarters of the Black Watch are in my constituency. What does he have to say in response to the very serious statements issued by senior officers of the Black Watch last week, to the effect that there were serious problems with the supply of adequate protective equipment?

I read that particular article carefully, as I am sure the hon. Lady did. It indicated a considerable success in the logistic effort, set out by the commanding officer conducting the interview. It also indicated that all the soldiers in question had at least one set of nuclear, biological and chemical equipment. Moreover, given her close knowledge of the Black Watch, perhaps she is aware that it declared itself ready for combat—that is, ready for action—a full seven days before the regiment crossed the line.

Does my right hon. Friend remember the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), when he was a Minister in 1995, saying:

"There will always be"

"deficiencies; there are always things that the services need to do their job better."—[Official Report, 16 October 1995; Vol. 264, c. 115.]?

My hon. Friend has considerable relevant recent experience. It is certainly the case that when he was Minister of State for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) said that there would always be deficiencies in the provision of equipment. That is not something that the Government accept. It is not the case that we will always recognise that there will be deficiencies. We will continue to try to improve the equipment available to the armed forces.

While the whole House will wish to congratulate the armed forces on their brilliant performance in Iraq, does the Secretary of State agree, given that the principal reason for going to war in the first place was to rid that country of chemical weapons and weapons of mass destruction, that it is extraordinary to find at figure 6 of part 3 of the National Audit Office report that the NAO inspectors discovered that the

"7 Armoured Brigade armoured vehicles did not have viable Nuclear Biological and Chemical defence filters fitted throughout the warfighting phase of the Operation."?

I have the report open at the page cited by the hon. Gentleman. The paragraph begins:

"Although overall protection against chemical agents was good"

It is clearly not the case that adequate protection was provided for those in the 7th Armoured Brigade, and in Challenger tanks and other armoured vehicles. It is a mercy that they were not attacked with chemical weapons. Sir Kevin Tebbit, permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence, admitted to the Public Accounts Committee last week that the military decision to order extra equipment was taken in late October, but that political permission was not given until 25 November. What was the cause of that unacceptable delay? Was it the Secretary of State who caused it, was it the Chancellor, or was it the Prime Minister?

As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, as the permanent secretary said when giving evidence to the Committee, the Government were concerned to ensure that overt preparations did not in any way compromise the diplomatic effort to pursue resolution 1441 through the United Nations. That is not to say that earlier preparations had not been made once the Prime Minister had told the House at the end of September that it was necessary to prepare our armed forces for the prospect of a conflict.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, notwithstanding the fact that I voted against the Falklands war, the Iraq war twice and all the rest of them, I find it preposterous that people such as the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) should talk about the Secretary of State for Defence being responsible for every single death while there is a war on? If that had been the case in the past, Churchill would have been hung, drawn and quartered in 1915, Thatcher would have been a figment of everybody's imagination—

Order.

I accept that there were problems and that the Ministry of Defence is learning the lessons and putting some things right, but I find it difficult to accept that much of the time Ministers said at the Dispatch Box that everything was fine. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether he was or was not told of the supply problems? If not, why not? Who takes responsibility for such tragic failures?

I will not trouble the House with a long list of the statements that I have made about those issues. Suffice it to say that on 14 May last year, some two weeks after the end of combat operations in Iraq, I made it clear that there were bound to be shortcomings in the issuing of equipment but that, overall, operations had been a remarkable success. I repeated that in Defence questions in September, and I said the same sort of thing again in December. That is borne out by both the MOD's lessons learned document and the independent NAO report. That is an absolutely consistent picture. We are not saying that there were not difficulties; we are saying that, overall, it was an outstanding logistic and military success.

This Government have appointed a Chief of Defence Logistics and implemented a total assets visibility project. If that project and a senior member of the armed forces had not put together an effective structure and process for the deployment and use of equipment, what else should we have been doing?

My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the successes that have been achieved. Equally, I recognise that one lesson, for example, that we must learn is how we improve the in-theatre asset-tracking system. That was part of the reason for not being able to identify the precise location of a small amount of the equipment that was in theatre but could not reach front-line forces in time.

If he will make a statement on the future strategic tanker aircraft project. [150157]

I was pleased to announce to the House this morning that we have decided that the bid from Air Tanker for Airbus A330 aircraft offers the best prospect of providing a value for money PFI service. That decision represents a key milestone in the future strategic tanker aircraft programme. We now need to undertake complex negotiations with Air Tanker before final decisions are taken.

I thank the Minister for that response, but the news that he announced this morning will have come as a great disappointment to Smiths Aerospace in my constituency, which would have liked to add the UK tanker programme to the technology already selected for the United States, Italy and Japan. Where does the news leave British industry's confidence in the much-vaunted MOD defence industrial policy, and what reciprocal arrangements does the right hon. Gentleman have with the French as a result of his strengthening the position of EADS and Thales in the UK?

The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that both bids contain significant benefits for UK industry. There are winners and losers in any competition, but our decision has been based on the bid that we judge offers the best potential solution for the armed forces, for the taxpayer and for UK industry.

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement this morning. One of the potential partners for Airbus is IBM, which will produce some of the software for the project based in Greenock in my constituency. Does that not demonstrate that throughout Britain we have the technological capacity to fulfil very high-spec orders? If he could see his way clear to giving us a little of the aircraft carrier orders as well, we would be very happy indeed.

Some people are never satisfied, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations on the high-tech aspect of the bid. As I said in response to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), the project offers significant opportunities for British and British-based industries and for the development of technology in this country.

We welcome the decision to replace the ageing VC10s and Tristars, which have done stalwart service for the Royal Air Force, but the Minister's statement today leaves several questions open. What are the outstanding issues referred to in his statement? What assessment has he made of the export potential of the A330 tankers, given that other air forces have bought 767 tankers? Why has he not yet decided to go down the private finance initiative route? Given the last-minute switch last summer of the Hawk 128 order from a PFI to a straight purchase, and last week's disastrous National Audit Office report that the procurement budget was £3,000 million overspent last year, the Government's smart acquisition programme is looking more foolish than smart.

The hon. Gentleman, as ever, spoiled quite a good first point with a rambling observation in the second part—an observation that he knows is inaccurate. Eighty-seven per cent. of the criticisms of major projects concerned four projects that were begun under a Conservative Government—four projects that were begun without the benefit of smart procurement. If the hon. Gentleman had read the report instead of making slogans, he would have seen that the smart procurement aspect was welcomed by the NAO. It is the difficulty with the four projects started under a Conservative Government that has caused the major backlog. I am in no way complacent about those projects—we have to get them right. However, perhaps he did not read too carefully the statement I made this morning about the future strategic tanker aircraft, in which I indicated that it was a PFI project. The negotiations that we are now taking forward with Air Tanker are to establish the precise details of the PFI aspect.

Is my hon. Friend aware that although some will be disappointed by the Air Tanker decision, the west midlands manufacturing supply chain will not be? In the past three years, many of the companies in question have diversified out of the automotive sector and into aerospace. The announcement is good news not only for north Wales and Scotland, but for the west midlands. Will he get his Department to highlight some of the initiatives for British manufacturing that are giving the west midlands a chance?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Often, shipbuilding is associated with Scotland and the north-east, and aircraft manufacturing with north Wales and the north-west, but in reality the benefits of such major contracts spread throughout the UK's manufacturing base. I am especially pleased that the west midlands will reap some of those benefits.

How many modern apprenticeships are provided by the Department; and if he will make a statement. [150159]

The Ministry of Defence trains its personnel for the operational and business requirement. However, as part of that training we are also committed to providing opportunities to obtain civilian qualifications, including modern apprenticeships. There are currently 13,789 modern apprenticeships in the armed forces, representing approximately 7 per cent. of those currently serving.

I thank my hon. Friend for his response. The Department should be congratulated on the fact that many servicemen and women are benefiting from modern apprenticeships. However, does he accept that there is little opportunity at present for the training of apprentices in private industry, so would he consider using MoD facilities to give private industry the opportunity to benefit from those training services?

We are already working with the private sector where possible, but we would certainly like to investigate further the opportunity to develop training links between the Ministry of Defence and the private sector.

I agree that many of our armed forces' facilities are the finest in the country, but there is an awful lot of spare capacity. Is it not time that the Department carried out an audit to see what spare capacity there is and how we can expand training facilities in those areas?

We are always looking at the defence training estate, and shall continue to do so. When any conclusions are reached, we shall of course tell the House.

What steps his Department has taken to follow up the findings of the Rand Europe report on the joint strike fighter. [150161]

The Rand report is a useful contribution to the debate on what industrial infrastructure is required in the UK to support our procurement of the JSF. We are considering the way ahead closely in conjunction with industry and our US partners. We do not expect to be in a position to make announcements, however, before 2005.

I thank the Minister for his answer, but can he identify what progress, if any, he is making with the United States to ensure that it will participate fully in the technology transfer to make the discussions to which he has just referred meaningful? Can he update the House on what is happening in the consortium of four major British aerospace companies which, I understand, is currently working on proposals dealing with, if nothing else, the maintenance and repair aspects of the JSF operation? He will know that if we can win those contracts, tens of thousands of jobs, given updates on the project, could be available for UK aerospace workers.

The right hon. Gentleman made a valid point in the second part of his question. Maintenance, repair and upgrade facilities are clearly an important feature of any major procurement process in the aerospace sector, and are something that we are keen to develop. Clearly, however, as he rightly pointed out, that has to be done in consultation with our US partners and other members of the consortium. As for access to technology, those talks are continuing. I am sure that he will understand the sensitivity of those talks from the US perspective, but our close relationship with the US as a key international partner stands us in very good stead for making progress on that front.

What the current strength is of the Territorial Army. [150162]

What the current strength of the Territorial Army is; and what it was in January 1997. [150164]

The strength of the Territorial Army on 1 December 2003, the most recent date for which we have figures, was 37,750, which includes 3,920 mobilised reservists but excludes 390 TA officers currently serving in the full-time reserve service. I regret that I am unable to provide comparable figures for 1 January 1997, but I can for 1 July that year. The strength of the TA on that date was 55,760, which includes 620 mobilised reservists. There were no TA officers on full-time reserve service on that date.

I thank the Minister for his response, which shows how significantly the manpower strength of the Territorial Army has declined since 1997. Given that the strategic defence review in 1998 spoke of a manpower target of 45,000, and given the increased versatility required of our Territorial Army forces following events that have taken place in the meantime, can he tell us how long it will be before that shortfall of 7,000 is made up?

I know that the hon. Gentleman served with the Royal Tank Regiment, and has considerable knowledge of these affairs. We are, of course, busy recruiting to the TA as often as possible. Recruitment is a constant process throughout the year, and the hon. Gentleman will know that it is conducted geographically by local TA centres. I am confident that in following the strategy set out in the strategic defence review we are going in the right direction.

Does the Minister recognise, in the light of the campaign in Iraq last year, that the Government will continue to undermine morale and retention in Territorial Army units unless they ensure that when the TA is deployed on active service its units are not cannibalised as a matter of course and, crucially, that both officers and NCOs are given credible operational roles, preferably with their own soldiers?

First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, who has also served with the TA, on completing the armed forces parliamentary scheme. The TA continuous attitude survey is due to report shortly, and it will provide an opportunity to examine issues raised by him and those raised by the various lessons learned documents from Operation Telic and Operation Fresco.

As my hon. Friend has indicated that he is looking for TA recruits, will he do something about the areas of the country from which TA units were removed in the earlier review? In particular, the matter caused grave concern in my constituency because the nearest unit is in Hertford, which is an impossible distance away, so young people in my area are not being given the chance to join the TA.

I was going to offer my hon. Friend the chance to volunteer and participate in TA activity, which is something I am sure he has done. Ensuring that the TA has the right footprint is an important part of our work, and we will continue to examine the estate on every possible occasion.

I am sure that the whole House appreciates the dedication, professionalism and bravery that the TA has shown and continues to show in operations in Iraq. The Government's defence White Paper states that the TA has become an integral part of the regular armed forces and that it will be increasingly used in future operations. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) and others who have served in the TA have highlighted a recent survey of TA personnel who have been sent to the Gulf, which found that 80 per cent. of them do not expect their employer to support any future deployment, that 63 per cent. of medical and technical staff are thinking of resigning from the TA and that 73 per cent. of them think that the NHS has lost vital skills because of the deployment. The problem will obviously increase given the Government's defence White Paper. What practical measures are Ministers taking to the square the circle between the desire to use the TA more and employers' increasing reluctance to release staff?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that our reserves have served with distinction in Iraq, at home, and in other areas of the world such as the Balkans in the past 12 months and before that. I am not sure whether he really wants me to discuss Army medical services, because if I do I will delve into events during the 1992 to 1997 Parliament, which may embarrass Conservative Front Benchers. We are heavily engaged with employers through SaBRE, the supporting Britain's reservists and employers campaign, with which he is familiar. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I continue to discuss the matter with national employers such as the NHS, regional employers, with whom we engage through the reserve forces and cadets associations, and other small and medium-sized businesses.

If he will make a statement on the future of Army welfare services. [150163]

The Army welfare service provides invaluable support to the Army and will continue to do so. We have recently expanded its remit so that it is in position to provide much needed assistance to Army veterans.

I warmly endorse what the Minister says, and the expansion in Army welfare services in south Wiltshire has been particularly effective. Will he do all he can to ensure that the Commander-in-Chief, Land Command is never put in the position of having to cut Army welfare services as a soft target because of budgetary constraints, bearing in mind the fact that the pressure on Army families is growing remorselessly due to overstretch and the shortened interval between tours?

I know that the hon. Gentleman takes considerable interest in these affairs, especially in his constituency, which I have visited twice during my first six months in post. The Army welfare service provides an invaluable service, but, as he knows, the Commander-in-Chief, Land Command has a devolved budget and those decisions must be down to him. I can tell the House that there will be a review, and I hope that when it is complete I will be able to say more.

Will the Minister consider paying a visit to the excellent centre run by Combat Stress at Hollybush in my constituency? Tremendous work is being done there for people suffering from mental problems caused by various conflicts in Hollybush—that is a problem as well—or, rather, in the Falklands and Northern Ireland as well as Iraq. Does he agree that while the remarks of the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) were meant in the kindest possible way, it is far, far too early, if there is any justice in this world, for any member of our excellent Front-Bench team to be considering making valedictory remarks?

First, may I say to my right hon. Friend that he will certainly be missed when he eventually leaves the House? He has been absolutely 100 per cent. behind the United Kingdom's armed forces on every possible occasion. He is right to point out the importance of the work being done by the charity Combat Stress, which I have met on a number of occasions. I am looking forward to taking the opportunity when I am next in Scotland to visit Combat Stress in his constituency.

The Minister rightly draws attention to and praises Army welfare services for the excellent work that they have done, particularly last year during the Iraq conflict. Does he agree that the work they do week in, week out plays an important part in the retention of soldiers and that there needs to be more involvement on the education side so that soldiers with children at school get a better deal?

I had a feeling that the hon. Gentleman would get to his favourite subject—schooling, particularly in the Colchester area. However, he forgot to mention Colchester—a rare moment in the House. As he knows, we are putting more money into service children's education and we will continue to do so. As he also knows, I am looking forward to visiting Colchester garrison in March.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the review will consider the provision of psychiatric support services for those who have served in various wars? This is a real problem for young soldiers and there has not been sufficient support in the past, which is a price that we cannot afford to pay as a community.

I thank my hon. Friend for that important contribution. She is right—I am not sure that this matter has been properly dealt with in the past. As she will be aware, however, we are engaged with the Priory group to provide psychiatric services and we very much hope that that will put an end to some of those problems.

What practical help are the Army welfare services giving to the families of those Territorials who served in Iraq, causing great financial hardship to themselves and their families?

The hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the Reserve Forces Act 1996, which covers the call-out of members of the Territorial Army and other reserve forces. Clearly, if there are any such problems, in particular, for his constituents, and he would like to let me know about them, I will take those cases up.

If he will make a statement on air defence policy priorities. [150167]

The United Kingdom's air defence capability is an important contributor to those standing military tasks that provide for the maintenance of the integrity of United Kingdom airspace, and the defence and security of the overseas territories. It also provides a valuable component of the United Kingdom's overall deployable military capability.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement this morning on the future tanker aircraft as a massive boost to Airbus at Broughton and to the economy of north Wales. Can the Minister assure me that the remaining issues regarding the private finance initiative contract will be sorted out as quickly as possible and not be allowed to drag on?

It clearly was an important announcement, and an announcement that was much awaited. My hon. Friend has alighted on one of the critical areas that must be properly resolved, and we are determined to get it resolved as quickly as possible.

What steps his Department has taken to help the reconstruction of Iraq. [150168]

Since the end of major combat operations, the Ministry of Defence has supported some 750 quick-impact projects, which have improved the immediate situation, as well as preparing the ground for broader reconstruction efforts. Experts from the UK armed forces have also contributed to the emergency infrastructure programme in the south that is funded jointly by the Department for International Development and the coalition provisional authority. As a result, supply routes, such as the rail link between Basra and Umm Qasr, have been reopened, while the repair of bridges over the River Hamdan has strengthened vital transport infrastructure. Clean-water provision has been restored through our construction of the water pipeline from Kuwait to Umm Qasr and repairs to the Umm Qasr water treatment plant, and we have also made extensive repairs to the electricity grid.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that exhaustive update on the quick-impact projects that are under way. I must pay personal tribute to the work of our troops in carrying out this important work. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that he prioritises within the Department the work in hospitals and schools? Beyond the quick-impact projects and the benefits that they will bring, it is the long-term benefits that will be brought through health and education projects that will lead to the prosperity and health of the Iraqi people.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observation. He might like to know that we supported the refurbishment of more than 90 schools in our area of operations. Another 140 further refurbishment projects are under way. As for the health service in Iraq, we have completed 65 general health projects, 16 hospital projects, 32 health centre projects and seven veterinary centre projects.

The Secretary of State will agree that one of the most important contributions that the Army can make to reconstruction in Iraq is maintaining internal security and public order, as evidenced by dealing with the recent riots in Basra. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be wholly unacceptable if, six months after the end of the major operations in Iraq, our armed forces did not have sufficient riot control equipment in Basra?

If there is any serious suggestion to that effect, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will raise it with me directly so that it can be investigated. Certainly, all the television programmes that I have seen providing footage of the operations conducted by British personnel have shown how expert those soldiers are in dealing with the threats to order that we have seen from time to time in southern Iraq. They have used precisely the same kind of techniques and equipment that I myself have seen them use when they have been training in Northern Ireland.

I and other members of the Defence Committee visited Iraq last year and saw some of the sterling work that is being undertaken by MOD personnel in some of the quick-win projects. Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the work of staff not only of the MOD but from the Department for International Development, the Foreign Office and the non-governmental organisations, who are making a real difference in regenerating schools and putting infrastructure in place—work which is unfortunately not widely reported in the British media, but which is making a real difference in Iraq?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and his colleagues for their visits to Iraq. That is much appreciated by troops on the ground, who appreciate the interest shown by visiting Members. I am delighted that he saw so much that is positive about progress in Iraq. That bears out all the reports that I have received. Although there are continuing concerns about security—less in the south than in other parts of Iraq—real progress is being made in reconstructing the country.

Given that a vital part of the reconstruction of Iraq is presumably the discovery and removal of weapons of mass destruction, may I remind the Secretary of State of an answer that he gave to me more than six months ago, when I asked him whether the failure to find weapons of mass destruction undermined the legality of the case for war? He gave a four-word answer, which was, "They will be found." Does the right hon. Gentleman still believe that? If not, does he not think that it is about time that the public saw all the legal opinion upon which the Government based the case for war?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity, but he needs to check more carefully the precise circumstances in which military action was taken. It was taken on the basis of resolution 1441. We know that Saddam Hussein had used weapons of mass destruction previously; 1441 was given by the United Nations to Saddam Hussein as a last opportunity to co-operate with the international community. The coalition forces judged that he had failed to take that last opportunity. I am sure that a fair-minded observer of these affairs, as the hon. Gentleman is, would reach that conclusion.

But is not unemployment in Iraq, including in the UK-occupied sector, running at a rate of about 70 per cent., and is not the UK following the approach of the United States of privatisation and foreign contractors, and in the case of the United States, corrupt sweetheart deals? There is plenty for the state to do there. Should there not be a massive programme of public spending and public ownership to get those Iraqis back into work? Would that not be better for the Iraqis and safer for the troops?

I am sure my hon. Friend recognises that it is public money that is going into Iraq—largely the public money provided by the US taxpayer. It is not entirely surprising, therefore, that the US tends to look first to its own companies to provide assistance. Nevertheless, there are significant opportunities for British companies to participate in projects in Iraq, which they are doing, and for other countries that are not even members of the coalition.

What recent research has been commissioned into logistics support in the field for army operations. [150169]

A range of reviews are under way to examine how best to deliver operational logistic support to the armed forces in the most effective and efficient manner. These include the work being led by the Chief of Defence Logistics, under the auspices of the end-to-end review and under my direct chairmanship. We are also determined to learn the lessons of recent operations, drawing on our own Operation Telic report "Lessons for the Future" and the helpful recent report by the National Audit Office.

Is the Minister aware of reports this weekend that show that the lack of a radio may have been a cause of the tragic death of six British military policemen who were killed by a mob in Iraq last year? Is that not yet another example of our troops being sent into active military operations without the proper equipment? Will the Minister support the families of those brave troops in seeking a public inquiry into those deaths?

I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he do something that the press does not seem to do, which is to try to establish the ground truth about the matter. They make these lurid accusations without so much as seeking the view of the Department. I can tell him that the allegations are wholly unfounded. I will write and give him greater detail on this point.

Could the Minister look at logistical support for our heavy armoured brigade, particularly in light of recent events in Iraq, and ensure that in future they have chemical filters that work for more than six hours?

The reality was that those tanks—the heavy armour to which the hon. Gentleman refers—had 95 per cent. reliability. He should read the National Audit Office report and the lessons learned, and stop throwing around accusations not based upon the breadth of examination that was carried out. If any lessons need to be learned about equipment shortcomings or failures, they will be learned. That is what the NAO report is about and it is why we carry out such an intensive investigation into our own experiences. Iraq tells us a lot about what needs to be done for the future.

If he will make a statement on fleet air defence. [150171]

All naval task groups include defensive assets matched to the size of and risk to the task group, which provide air, surface and underwater protection. For multinational operations such as Operation Telic, protection is provided jointly across coalition forces. The effectiveness of these complementing layers and the benefits of operating with allies has been successfully demonstrated in many recent national, NATO and allied exercises and proven in the Gulf and Adriatic operations.

The air defence Sea Harrier is being withdrawn before the new joint strike fighter becomes available, and we also hear that the number of destroyers and frigates is being reduced. How does the Minister assess the Navy's capability to defend itself should it come up against an enemy that has an air force at full strength?

I do not think the hon. Lady listened to my earlier answer. We have said consistently that there will be combined and joint operations with allies, and if we find ourselves in theatre of conflict, mutual protection is afforded to all. The decision was taken to dispense with the Sea Harrier. It was an old aircraft and to upgrade it would have cost a considerable sum of money, was technically complicated and might not have produced the necessary result. The Type 45 destroyers will come on stream later in the decade and they will afford an immense level of protection to the Navy.

I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned the aircraft carriers, because that is the matter that I want to address. He will be aware that the size of the aircraft carrier will determine the response time for landing and take-off, in that that will be much quicker on the larger ships than on the smaller ships. Exactly where are we with these aircraft carriers?

We are still going ahead with building them, which I know my hon. Friend welcomes. Because of his sophisticated knowledge of these matters, he will appreciate that the design aspect has to be properly defined, not only in relation to what the aircraft carriers can carry but in relation to a range of other matters associated with the ships' overall size. Progress has been made and the Navy is very much looking forward to getting the vessels.

If he will make a statement on his plans for the future involvement of British forces in combating international terrorism. [150172]

The new chapter to the strategic defence review and the defence White Paper "Delivering Security in a Changing World" set out the significant contributions that the armed forces can make to the Government's responses to international terrorism. These range from the role of defence diplomacy and stabilisation operations in tackling the conditions that promote terrorism, to large-scale combat operations, such as those in Afghanistan, which destroyed al-Qaeda's training camps and disrupted its leadership.

Given that at least some of the activities that my right hon. Friend mentioned do not involve the use of force, can he explain to the House how the Ministry of Defence is co-ordinating the activities of other Departments as they meet their obligations in the Government's fight against international terrorism?

My hon. Friend is quite right that there is no single military solution to international terrorism and the Ministry of Defence must work closely with other Departments in ensuring that we use all effective means to tackle terrorism. For example, the Treasury may well have a significant role to play, as does the Ministry of Defence, in cutting off sources of finance. But I can assure my hon. Friend, as I assure the House, that we work closely right across this Government and in co-operation with other Governments in dealing with the threat of international terrorism.

The Secretary of State will be aware that the United States Department of Homeland Security takes the risk of cyber-terrorism very seriously indeed, and that the United States army and other armed forces within the United States have in place blocks to stop cyber-terrorist attacks breaking down its computer control systems. Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the British armed forces have similar protection in place?

We take seriously the threat to computers and computer networks—I shall try to avoid using the phrase that the hon. Gentleman uses—and we discuss it jointly with our friends in the United States.

How many members of reserve forces are serving in the Gulf region; and if he will make a statement. [150174]

As at last Wednesday, 21 January, 1,042 reservists were serving in the Gulf region supporting Op Telic. Broken down by service they are as follows: Royal Naval Reserve, 18; Royal Marine Reserve, 14; Territorial Army, 991; Royal Auxiliary Air Force, 19.

And is it not the case that despite certain stories circulated in the media, most reservists were proud to be deployed and to serve their country during the conflict in Iraq, and are proud to be out there now helping with the rebuilding of Iraq?

I know that my hon. Friend has a personal interest, because his son Martyn was a valuable member of our armed forces during the conflict.