Pursuant to the statement of the Foreign Secretary, 7 June 2004, Official Report, column 31, on Iraq, what reports he has had from the US Administration on their investigation of the attack on 18 to 19 May on the village of Makr-al-Deel. [179359]

United Kingdom operational commanders received an oral briefing from their US counterparts as part of their daily theatre operational situation updates. That briefing was passed by telephone to my office as soon as it was received. The US investigation into the incident is continuing.

Is there a serious intent to establish the truth?

As I understand it, the United States has set up a thorough investigation into those events. We know some of the facts; we have seen some of them in various media reports that suggested that a wedding was taking place. Equally, I have seen briefing from the United States Government indicating that not only were they attacking a base for the transit of people across the Syrian-Iraqi border but that in the aftermath of the incident they found, for example, not only rifles but rocket-propelled grenades and other items of quite a heavy military kind. Obviously, it is important that we allow their investigation to proceed.

The allegations about the incident at Makr-al-Deel, as well as US actions over the weekend, and even the fresh allegations in The Guardian today will be seen by Iraq civilians as the actions of the coalition as a whole. Unless there is a full and impartial investigation, the coalition authority and the case for democracy in Iraq will suffer. British troops are covered by the International Criminal Court but Iraqi and US troops are not. Is it not the best way to reassure Iraqi civilians that all coalition forces, including Iraqi and US forces, should be covered by the ICC?

The latter point is obviously a matter for the US Government, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman to this extent: it is important that each country conduct thorough and rigorous investigations into such allegations. The hon. Gentleman referred to the story in The Guardian this morning; it covered two pages and I read it in some detail. I hope that he will accept that the headline on the story could just as easily have been, "More False Allegations Against British Troops", because the detail in the story did not particularly bear out the rather lurid headline that The Guardian's editor had chosen. Such issues arise regularly, but I give the hon. Gentleman and the House my assurance that each of them that involves British troops will be thoroughly investigated.

What contribution his Department will make to the training of 17,000 African troops by 2010. [179360]

The Ministry of Defence is committed to playing its part in meeting the G8 goal to train 75,000 peacekeepers world wide by 2010. Our aim is to train about 17,000 African troops, either directly or through our support to centres of excellence such as the Kofi Annan international peacekeeping training centre in Ghana.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. As he knows, the most recent G8 summit made a number of commitments to the continent of Africa, which was itself a tribute to our Prime Minister, including the training of 75,000 African troops in peacekeeping skills by 2010. In the Prime Minister's statement to the House last week, he said that our contribution would be those 17,000 troops. Does my right hon. Friend the Minister agree that British troops are among the best in the world not only at fighting but at peacekeeping and that it is thus entirely appropriate—

Order. That question is far too long.

I cannot disagree with a word that my hon. Friend said. He made a strong point about the role played by our troops when they are called on to fight wars, wherever that may be; they have been thus engaged in Africa, the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere in recent years. However, one of their key attributes is that they play a peacekeeping role, too, and that is what we want to impart in nations where we have a presence. The Prime Minister has made clear his commitment to Africa and it is salutary for us to see how deep the problem is in that continent, where 20 countries and 20 per cent. of the population are affected by conflict; about 10 million African people have been uprooted from their homes owing to conflict. Everything that we do in trying to build that peacekeeping role will help immeasurably in finding solutions to those difficult problems.

For obvious reasons, that sort of activity is welcomed on both sides of the House, but can the Minister of State tell us how it will be affected by the situation at the cornerstone of infantry training, Warminster, which has been stripped of its demonstration battalion because of overstretch?

The hon. Gentleman is treading into a completely different area. I do not agree with his assertion that we shall not be able to deliver the objectives we have set out. My response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), whose question highlighted our expertise in that area, showed that we have not lost that expertise. We still have that capability and we shall continue using it to best effect in Africa and wherever we have peacekeeping missions.

Given the British armed forces' globally recognised expertise in engineering and logistics units, is my right hon. Friend able to say whether those key skills, which would be of great benefit, particularly on the African continent, will be shared with the 17,000 African troops undergoing training?

I cannot give a specific answer, because we would primarily seek to get volume capabilities to deal with some of the very big issues that we must face in Africa—I recounted the depth and extent of the problem there—but clearly one of the areas where we must grow capability is in that type of sustainability and very positive reconstruction role. A lot will depend on what the African countries want to put into that training approach as well. So we stand ready to deal with anything in a progressive and constructive way to assist in that reconstruction. My hon. Friend is right: that is an important area. It is another area where we excel, and we must always consider how we can impart that knowledge to those nations that we are training.

If he will make it his policy to delay the closure of the Droitwich Spa Army Medal Office until the end of December 2007. [179361]

As I have said previously, I do not intend to hold up the formation of the new Ministry of Defence medal office by delaying the closure of the Army Medal Office at Droitwich Spa. Although I commend the hon. Member for his concern for his constituents, I am convinced that the investment of effort now to modernise medal delivery will be to the ultimate benefit of veterans and today's serving personnel.

In the current edition of Soldier magazine, the staff of the Chief of the General Staff, General Jackson, say:

"There is a widespread and strongly held view that … the administration of pay and allowances is still failing our people."

"It is well known that our pay and administration hardware is creaking at the seams".

The Suez medal is one from this Government to those veterans. I was in Wolverhampton on Saturday, where I joined members of the Suez veterans' club in presenting three of the latest Suez veterans' medals. We in this Government have righted an injustice to ensure that those Suez veterans have a medal.

It is a bit rich for the Government to claim credit for the issuing of the Suez canal medal and clasp, when they did so under pressure from hon. Members on both sides of the House, as they know. Given the difficulty faced in the issuing of those medals and clasps, which is likely to take at least two years to complete, what effect will the closure of the Army Medal Office have on the issuing of the Artic Convoy medal, when the Government are eventually forced into issuing that medal, too—a commitment given by the Leader of the Opposition, but not yet endorsed by the Government? However, we can be as sure as anything that, when they do endorse it, they will claim credit for having done so all along.

I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, will never miss an opportunistic moment to make an opportunistic point—that is exactly what he does but let me inform the House that, so far, as of last Friday, we have had 39,666 applications, of which 9,709 have been dispatched. I very much regret that there continue to be problems with the dispatch of the Suez medal, but I am taking action to put that right. That is an important thing that we should do. We are taking action, whereas the Conservative Government never did, and it will improve medal delivery in the longer term.

When he last discussed progress on the European security and defence policy with the French Defence Minister. [179362]

I last met Madame Alliot-Marie on 9 June on board the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, anchored off Portsmouth. The visit formed part of the entente cordiale centenary celebrations. Our discussions covered a range of issues, including European security and defence policy.

Does the Secretary or State agree that the European defence agency, if fully implemented, would have a significant impact on Britain's ability in the next Parliament independently to choose a replacement for Trident?

It would not have that impact, no.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most crucial issue in European defence at present is encouraging our European partners to improve their defence capabilities? What is he doing as secretary of State to encourage that? Does he also agree that the best way to do so is to work in co-operation with our European allies, and not to carp from the sidelines, which gets us nowhere?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. What is important is that we engage our European partners in improving their military capabilities. If we can do that through NATO, all to the good. If we can also do that through the European Union, that would be an extra benefit. Indeed, that was the Conservative party's policy at the time of the Maastricht treaty. Somewhere along the line the views of the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), which in those days were considered somewhat extreme by most members of the Conservative party, have become mainstream. That says something about the current opportunism of the leadership of the Conservative party.

How does the Secretary of state react to the extraordinary statement last week by the three largest aerospace businesses in the EU—BAE Systems, Thales and EADS—which was reported in the Financial Times on 15 June, to the effect that the European defence agency is merely a fig leaf to cover the nakedness of any progress towards European defence? Is that not an extraordinary indictment from that very authoritative source?

I do not accept that criticism. Indeed, last weekend, in the course of the discussions on the framing of a draft European constitution. there was agreement on the need to develop European defence policy and specifically to establish a European defence agency, which will have the opportunity of co-ordinating industrial and military efforts to improve European military capabilities, which I would have thought should be approved of by the Conservative party—indeed, a few years ago would have been approved of by the Conservative party. As I said in my last answer, the Conservative party today is so determined to court any cheap popularity that it is opposing things that only a few years ago it strongly supported.

What efforts his Department is making to support the British manufacturing sector. [179363]

In October 2002 we published our defence industrial policy, which seeks to provide the armed forces with the equipment that they require at best value for money for the taxpayer, while sustaining a healthy and globally competitive defence industry. When acquisition decisions are made, the Government take into account the benefit to the United Kingdom economy arising from defence expenditure, including detailed consideration of the extent to which UK companies will be involved in supplying and supporting equipment and services.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. I am sure that he will agree that UK defence manufacturers and workers value our special relationship with the United States of America and are keen to see that translate into improved access to US contracts. What progress is being made across Whitehall Departments on negotiating the waiver on the international traffic in arms regulations?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important issue. I am certainly disappointed that some in Congress want to damage our efforts to bring down the barriers to improve Anglo-American defence industrial co-operation. We would like the closeness of the wider relationship more properly reflected industrially. The ITAR waiver would certainly be a positive step in that direction. We have made our opposition to the damaging provisions of this year's Defense Authorizations Bill clear both to the Administration and to Congress. We are grateful to the Administration for their robust support in expressing their solidarity with our position.

Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be of immense encouragement to British manufacturing industry and give a positive indication that the Government support manufacturing in the United Kingdom if the Ministry of Defence gave the go-ahead to BAE Systems' Nimrod MRA4—maritime reconnaissance and attack mark 4—project, which would be built at Woodford, which lies partly on the periphery of my constituency and partly in the constituency of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton)?

The Government do support manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom. As set out in the principles of our industrial policy, we do so through the use of the defence budget where that is appropriate. It is important that we secure best value for money for the British taxpayer, but in our calculations we consciously and as part of our overall policy take account of the research, investment and benefit that that will provide to British industry.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most positive ways to show support for British manufacturing industry is to keep teams such as the Red Arrows flying? Will he give an assurance that what we have been seeing in the press is just media talk and there is no option to shut down the Red Arrows and the Hawk aircraft that they fly?

I recently had an extremely good visit to the Red Arrows, and I was as impressed as my hon. Friend by the brilliance of the pilots and their stunning showmanship. I am delighted to endorse their strong commitment to promoting British exports around the world, the excellence of British manufacturing, and the skill of our pilots.

Is the Secretary of State satisfied that his Department does enough to encourage small manufacturing industry in this country to compete for MOD contracts? Is he aware that such businesses often find getting a foothold in defence contracts extremely burdensome?

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Small businesses finding it difficult to secure access to larger contracts is a problem throughout UK industry, whether the contracts are directly with the MOD, which is relatively unlikely for the sort of small business that I believe he has in mind, or for the supply of parts under larger contracts, which are won by larger companies. However, I agree with his basic point: it is important that we encourage smaller manufacturing companies to participate in the defence industrial policy.

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the importance to the north-west economy of BAE Systems' site at Woodford. When I visited the site recently, I was shown around one of the newly refurbished Nimrods and was impressed by the state-of-the-art surveillance equipment and technology on the aircraft. Will my right hon. Friend say when a decision will be made on orders for the Nimrod? He will appreciate that the orders are crucial to secure jobs and investment in the north-west.

In February last year we reached an important agreement with BAE Systems on Nimrod—a contract amendment that put Nimrod MRA4 on a much sounder footing for the future. Under the restructured contract, design and development and production have been separated as far as possible to ensure that technology is adequately de-risked before making any further commitment to production, price and schedule. The MOD has been approving low-risk production activities when it makes sense to do so and when such activities help to maintain essential skills and product knowledge, as well as preserve the schedule. There is still work to be done before I can satisfy my hon. Friend, but I assure her that we are committed to the Nimrod project, which is important for industry in the United Kingdom and crucial in terms of the capabilities that it will offer our armed forces.

I am happy to hear the Secretary of State give his commitment to the Nimrod project and to hear him say that he is seeking value for money, as are we all. However, does he recognise the tremendous improvement that has taken place both in the operation of the work force and the management at BAE Systems in Woodford?

There has certainly been improvement, but as I suggested in my answer a moment ago, that has come at some cost to the Government. I hope that the improvement will continue to be commensurate with the further efforts that the Government are making to get the project right.

Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Northern Defence Industries, which is working with small and medium-sized businesses in the north-east and Yorkshire to gain access to defence contracts? What encouragement can the MOD give NDI and other organisations to ensure that small companies get access to some large contracts?

As I said a few minutes ago, the problem is often that the larger Companies that win those contracts have bureaucratic procedures that they have to go through before they accept bids from suppliers, particularly from smeller companies. However, I agree that it is important that we work with excellent organisations such as NDI to ensure access for those smaller companies, which will one day develop into the larger companies that will secure the manufacturing future of the United Kingdom.

With much of Britain's defence industrial base either already in foreign ownership or about to become foreign-owned, is it not the case than the Government are presiding indifferently over a massive summer clearance sale of major British defence companies, with many attendant risks to our security of supply? Is the Secretary of State's own much vaunted defence industrial policy not a complete shambles?

Opportunism again from the Conservative Front Bench. Our policy was established 18 months ago, and we did not hear a single word of objection from the Conservatives at the time, but now they are taking the opportunity to criticise us in a quite unprincipled way. Their party is supposed to be committed to market forces. Is the hon. Gentleman recommending nationalisation of major defence industries? Is he suggesting that the Government should interfere in the decisions made by private sector companies? Is he suggesting that where the shares are held is more significant than where the jobs, investment, and technology are? Thai is the Government's policy—he did not object to it when it was published, so to do so now is simply opportunism.

What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of NATO's command of international security assistance force operations in Afghanistan. [179364]

Since NATO assumed responsibility for the international security assistance force in August 2003, the alliance has continued successfully to assist the Afghan transitional authority in maintaining security in Afghanistan. NATO has also led the expansion of ISAF beyond Kabul and is working on expanding the force across Afghanistan.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. If NATO is to assume a more global peacekeeping role in future, it is essential that its command of ISAF is a success, and is seen to be a success. Does he share my disappointment that other member countries of NATO are reluctant to give ISAF the number of troops that it needs to extend its mandate beyond Kabul? Some countries may have legitimate differences of opinion with us over Iraq, but they all supported the Afghan war. Now is the time not to walk away from that country, but to help to rebuild it.

I know that my hon. Friend takes a close interest in matters relating to Afghanistan. All of us want things to happen more quickly, but in the real world it takes time to plan a complicated military operation, especially in such a challenging environment as Afghanistan. It takes time to organise and deploy military forces, and for that deployment to have a full effect. My hon. Friend should look at what NATO has already achieved. It is moving fast—just two months after the UN authorised ISAF expansion, it established the first ISAF provincial reconstruction team. We are clearly moving into another phase of possible expansion, in which the United Kingdom is to the fore. I suggest that my hon. Friend wait for the outcome of the Istanbul summit, as some of the issues that he has raised will be raised there as well.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is no anxiety about NATO's command of ISAF, but its real difficulty is the timely generation of adequate forces to undertake the jobs required? Will he confirm that at the summit on 17 June in Brussels it was agreed that the EU would establish its own military operational planning centre independent of NATO? Would it not be better if, instead of discussing headquarters, some of those countries increased their defence spending on deployable capabilities to undertake those difficult missions?

May I suggest that if the hon. Gentleman had been here for question 4 he could have asked his question then? However, I hope he heard me when I said that NATO is making progress, and more will be made as a result of the important summit at which NATO Ministers will deal with any possible expansion in Afghanistan. That is when the issue will be discussed, and that is when a structure will be put in place to develop our mission in that country.

With elections in Afghanistan due by the end of the year, it is obviously important to make sure that there is a stable political environment in the country in the run-up to those elections. What role are NATO troops, particularly British troops within the NATO forces, playing to make sure that that environment is sustained between now and election day?

My hon. Friend raises an important issue about the emerging democracy and the forthcoming elections in Afghanistan. It falls to all coalition countries to do our best to ensure that registration takes place under the UN lead, and that there is a stable environment to encourage people to vote—all sections of the community, men and women alike, who are eligible to vote. It is encouraging that significant numbers of women have already registered to vote in the election. We and other coalition forces are playing a dual role—in ISAF in Kabul and in the provincial reconstruction teams, whose role and function there are proposals to expand. It is important to allow the Afghan forces and the transitional Government progressively to take on the ownership and control of their own country. Giving them the confidence to move forward and the security in which to do it is an important role that we are playing, through both ISAF and the PRTs.

The right hon. Gentleman's answer to the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) was, when boiled down to its essentials, wait and see. How long must we wait and what will we see?

I gave a time scale to that. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had been listening, he would have heard me say that the summit in Istanbul next week would no doubt discuss the matter, and we may return to it in future questions if progress is not made.

What assessment he has made of the D-Day commemorations. [179365]

I made an initial assessment of the D-day commemorations to the House on 9 June during the veterans affairs debate. I am pleased to report further that the Ministry of Defence has received a number of letters from hon. Members, veterans and their organisations who attended the events in France, expressing their thanks for the effort provided by the Department and our armed forces. I would again like to add my thanks to all for their hard work. I have also written to the French Veterans Minister thanking the people of France for their support during that most memorable weekend of 5 and 6 June.

I am sure everybody in the House would agree that the commemorations were a success. They were both moving and a fitting remembrance of the bravery and sacrifice of veterans. It is important that their work and their bravery, not just in world war two but in other conflicts, be kept in the public mind in future. What will the Government do in the future to keep these affairs in the forefront of the public's mind? Has he ever given consideration to something for which I have campaigned for some years: a veterans day public holiday?

We have already announced to the House that we propose to have a veterans awareness week in July 2005. That will be an opportunity for people in all parts of the United Kingdom to take part in discussions with veterans and, we hope, in educative opportunities for young people in order for them to understand what happened in 1945 and to be more aware of how those great and momentous events in our history took place. I will give some consideration to my hon. Friend's other suggestion, but I am sure she is aware that that is not directly the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence.

May I, on behalf of many of those who were there, thank the Government and congratulate them on the arrangements that they made for those never-to-be-forgotten celebrations? Will the Minister extend to the armed services our thanks for all they did in a very short time to bring together such a tremendous display, and will he particularly pass to the Normandy veterans our admiration and respect for their bearing and dignity on a parade that no one who saw it will ever forget?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments about that weekend's events in Normandy, and Her Majesty's Government were delighted by the excellent turnout from both sides of the House. Events occurred in Portsmouth, which has a direct and important connection with the Normandy landings, in Lichfield, at the national memorial arboretum, and in many other towns and cities across the UK, such as Plymouth and Blackpool, and I hope that the people who attended those events also had a memorable and enjoyable weekend.

The Minister mentioned next year, when we shall commemorate victory in Europe and victory over Japan. Will he and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office consider righting a wrong perpetrated half a century ago, when the Polish air force was denied the opportunity to march down Whitehall with the other representative contingents because it might offend Uncle Joe Stalin? I hope that he will find some way to commemorate the Polish air force, which was part of "the few".

I sympathise with my hon. Friend's point, and I shall look into the matter and report back to him. On 10 July 2005, the country will come together to commemorate VE-day and VJ-day, and I hope that all those who want to participate can do so, whether that occurs in London or other cities and towns around the UK.

What discussions he has had with counterparts from the Balkan states on their contribution to NATO. [179366]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and I have regular discussions with our Balkan counterparts. Those discussions have focused on the transition from a NATO-led force, SFOR, to an EU-led force, EUFOR, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and on the Balkan states' aspirations to join NATO or partnership for peace. I am due co visit the region shortly.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he say how the decision to transfer from a NATO-led mission to an EU-led mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina was made?

The range of demands must match the particular Balkan country involved. Bosnia and Herzegovina has made significant progress on defence reform, including the creation of a Ministry of Defence and the appointment of a Defence Minister, but full co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, particularly with regard to Karadzic, is a prerequisite for partnership for peace membership. We urge Bosnia and Herzegovina to meet that and all other international obligations, and to build close and friendly ties with its neighbours. We place a range of demands on all countries within the region, some of which are already members of the action plan and are hopefully moving towards full NATO membership, and others of which still have some way to go.

Will the Government support Macedonia's application at the forthcoming Istanbul talks?

No.

If he will make a statement on progress towards establishing a private finance initiative scheme for the building of RAF homes in Carterton. [179367]

This private finance initiative project to provide service families' accommodation for RAF Brize Norton was launched in May 2003. Since then, the project has gone through pre-qualification and short-listing phases. Once final approval is given, the next stage will be to issue the formal invitation to negotiate.

Is the Minister aware that his predecessor, the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), said that the RAF homes in Carterton are among the worst in the RAF? Given that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy wrote to me in June last year saying that the PFI to rebuild the homes was the Defence Housing Executive's "highest priority", will the Minister knock heads together to make sure that that scheme, which should be good for the RAF, good for Carterton and good for west Oxfordshire, goes ahead soon? Will he come to Carterton to see how urgently the rebuilding work needs to be done?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support and that of West Oxfordshire district council for replacing Ministry of Defence housing at Carterton. I agree with the comments of my predecessor and I am aware that local people consider the houses an eyesore. There are concerns that some aspects of antisocial behaviour, especially vandalism, are connected to the empty properties. As the Minister responsible for the estate, I understand the wish to replace the houses as quickly as possible. I greatly hope hat the project that we have in mind will ensure that replacement housing will be available in mid-2006. Although I cannot undertake to come to Carterton shortly, I undertake to keep the hon. Gentleman informed of progress.

How many more houses will be needed at Carterton to accommodate the aircraft people from RAF Lyneham in my constituency when the Hercules fleet is moved? Is the shoddy, decrepit condition of the housing in Carterton a good reason for reconsidering that move?

We have been through this at some length with the hon. Gentleman. The decision about RAF Lyneham has been made. We had an Adjournment debate in the House on the subject, to which I replied, and there has been much correspondence. I repeat that the decision has been made and I am confident that we will get our housing stock up to the standard that we would all expect.

What importance he attaches to a regiment's historic association with geographical areas when seeking recruits. [179368]

Great importance is attached to the historic links that the infantry, the Royal Artillery, the Household Cavalry and Royal Armoured Corps have with the areas from which they traditionally recruit. Although the location of potential soldiers is not an overriding consideration in recruitment, the practice of maintaining links with geographical areas has served the Army well for many years, not least in helping to uphold a sense of unit identity.

I am sure that the Minister can justify the number of regiments in Scotland, which has a population of 5 million. Will he explain why the nine counties—the traditional recruitment area of the Royal Anglian Regiment—with a population of 7 million, have only one regiment and two battalions? Whereas the Scottish regiments find difficulty in recruiting, the Royal Anglian Regiment does not, and the reinstatement of the Third Battalion—the former Essex Regiment—would go a long way towards filling the Army's vacancies.

I am well aware of the hon. Gentleman's points, which he makes consistently. Recruitment is generally buoyant and that includes recruitment to the Royal Anglians. It is also worth saying that the Army, like any organisation, needs to adapt to change in the existing environment. It does that, as has been proved around the world.

Does my hon. Friend appreciate that we are all proud of our historic links with our county regiments? Did he take the opportunity during the commemorations of D-day to see one of the films, which showed a small American town where almost every other household featured in the casualty rates after the Omaha beach landings? Such scenes had not been known in Britain since the days of the pals regiments. Will my hon. Friend reassure me that, in our recruitment base, the current strategy and tactics in the British Army are correct and should be adhered to on recruitment and allocation?

I am sorry to tell my hon. Friend that I did not see the film to which he referred. I had one or two other things to do in the run-up to that weekend. Omaha beach is covered in the Minister of Defence booklet that we published to commemorate D-day. I know that my hon. Friend has a copy, because I made sure that every hon. Member had one.

The Minister knows from his experience that, especially when considering infantry battalions, not only their recruitment record but their ability to retain soldiers after they have been trained is important. Will he take that into account in any analysis of future infantry battalions? The Royal Anglian Regiment has an especially good record on retaining trained soldiers as well as on its ability to recruit them.

I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman not only that recruitment is buoyant but that, in the past two years, the Army's trained strength has increased by more than 3,300 personnel. That is down not only to good recruitment practices but to good retention levels. I share the hon. Gentleman's view that it is important to retain people in the British Army once they have been recruited. We intend to do that.

Does the Minister accept that there is considerable affection for and pride in the Royal Anglian Regiment in Essex? Will he please tell me what specific support has been given to regiments such as the Royal Anglian for their local recruitment drives? Is there any truth in the recent press reports that there has been a six-month freeze on recruitment?

No. There has been no recruitment freeze. I met many members of the recruitment team in the hon. Gentleman's area last Friday when I was at Chelmsford fire station to celebrate the sixth-form college's national diplomas. That included talking to one or two people from a battalion.

This looks like an East Anglian love-in. As a Member of Parliament representing Norfolk, I of course endorse all the comments made by hon. Members about the Royal Anglian Regiment. I am sure that the whole House agrees that the links between a regiment and its historical recruiting areas are very important in maintaining the strength of the Army.

I have made clear the position on recruitment, which I am responsible for. There is no recruitment freeze in the British Army. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that that is the situation we have today. Of course, it is not the situation that members of the Government he supported in the early '90s dealt with. Their recruitment freeze in the early '90s has a direct impact on the ability of our armed forces to deliver today, and he needs to understand that. It is obvious and consistent that we ensure that our armed forces are relevant, flexible and usable. That is what they are today.

If he will make a statement on when he expects to conclude his negotiations with BAE Systems on the tranche 2 contract for the Eurofighter. [179371]

Negotiations with BAE Systems regarding the order for tranche 2 Typhoons are continuing. We and our partner nations need to acquire aircraft with the right capabilities to meet our requirements, at an affordable price.

While I thank the Secretary of State for those words, may I point out to him that they do not answer the question I posed? He has been in discussion with BAE Systems on tranche 2 for at least the last nine months, and he will be aware of the uncertainties that the absence of an announcement is causing among the work force at BAE at Warton in my constituency. Will he outline the problems that are preventing a decision from being made on that vital procurement programme? When will he be able to announce that decision—at Farnborough or when the comprehensive spending review is complete?

I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman's idea of a negotiation appears to be to find out what the other side want and give it to them. He was a Treasury Minister in the last Conservative Government, so perhaps that explains why their economic policies were such a disaster. However, I can tell him that there is a question about the price. We are engaged in a negotiation and I will go on negotiating on the Government's behalf until I get the right price.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a lot of workers throughout Lancashire are very worried about tranche 2? What message does he have for the work force there and what message does he have for the management of BAE Systems?

I shall not repeat what I have just said on the question of the price, but on behalf of the Government I say to the work force, and indeed to the management, that the six aircraft that have been received in service are performing superbly. This is a magnificent aircraft and it is exceeding our expectations. The next production aircraft is due to be accepted in service this week, and two aircraft are shortly due to lead the export campaign in Singapore, where the aircraft has already been shortlisted. This is a superb aircraft, but obviously it is important that we get the right price for it.

Will the Secretary of State explain the implications for RAF Leeming should he decide not to proceed with the second tranche?

The second tranche aircraft, as the hon. Lady knows, is of a different kind from tranche 1. It will have different capabilities and will provide an air-to-ground capability not originally envisaged when Typhoon was designed many, many years ago. It is vital to the future not only of RAF Leeming, but of the strike capabilities of the RAF that we secure tranche 2 aircraft. I emphasise, however, that that must be at an affordable price.

What progress has been made on reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan. [179372]

Through our contribution to the international security assistance force in Kabul, and to the joint departmental provincial reconstruction teams in north-west Afghanistan, our armed forces help to facilitate the reconstruction programmes of the Afghan Transitional Authority and international development agencies. An essential part of that is supporting the development of Afghanistan's own security forces. We are helping to train the Afghan national army and, through the provincial reconstruction teams, have provided assistance to the Afghan national police.

I thank the Minister for that reply. When British forces help in the reconstruction of Afghanistan by training police, will they also consider training civilians, ensuring that both men and women are involved in the process, so that we reconstruct not just buildings but civil society in Afghanistan?

Absolutely. That is one of the main thrusts of the provincial reconstruction team, which is a multi-departmental initiative, with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development. In Mazar-e-Sharif, the DFID representative has in the region of £1 million to allocate to a range of projects, some of them linked directly to security sector reform, but also to the whole reconstruction effort of rebuilding roads and bridges, reopening schools, reopening courthouses, or opening courthouses where perhaps none have been, and creating that normal society. My hon. Friend raises an important point. That is what our mission is in Afghanistan, and we are beginning to make progress.

Would the Minister accept that the people of Afghanistan have been badly let down by NATO in its first out-of-area operation? The troops have failed to arrive, time is running out and the elections are due in September. What will happen at the NATO meeting in Istanbul next month to ensure that troops really are there, that it is not all words, and that there is some action from NATO members?

I would not agree with the view expressed by the right hon. Gentleman that we have let down the people of Afghanistan. I have recounted in response to two separate and subsequent questions the range of activities in which we are engaged, and I have also said that we must live in the real world. Trying to put forward a major new initiative requires a lot of hard discussions and negotiations, and all the various coalition nations must decide what their best input into that is. We have made very good progress, and much more progress will be made. The situation is not ideal in Afghanistan; more remains to be done, and that is what will be addressed in Istanbul next week.

If he will make a statement on the role of the Fusiliers in Iraq. [179373]

Our armed forces have done and continue to do an outstanding job in southern Iraq. The role of the 1st Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers last year, and the 1st Battalion the Royal Highland Fusiliers and the 1st Battalion the Royal Welch Fusiliers this year, has been to work for the creation of a safe, secure and stable environment for the Iraqi people.

Given that four fusiliers are at the moment being charged with various offences, and that other fusiliers were under investigation in relation to certain things that happened last year, will the Secretary of State please tell the House what will be the situation in relation to the other fusiliers under investigation? Will they be able to continue their military career with no blemish on their good character?

As I have made clear to the House on previous occasions, it is important that those negotiations are able to proceed free of any kind of ministerial or political interference. I give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. It is therefore a matter for the appropriate prosecution authorities to determine whether any charges arise out of these investigations. I assure him, as I do the House, that the Ministry of Defence is well aware of the remarkable service by the Fusiliers and by all members of Britain's armed forces. I would not want anyone to go away with the idea that simply because certain individuals might be subject to prosecution, that in any way affects the high regard in which the Fusiliers and members of Britain's armed forces are held in respect of their excellent work in Iraq.

The allegations against the Fusiliers and other battalions involved in Iraq in 2003 do not appear in any way to be replicated with regard to the divisional detention facility that the Secretary of State allowed the Defence Committee to visit. We were left with the impression of a facility being run in absolute convergence with the fourth Geneva convention, as every Member of the House would expect. What will happen after 1 July to those detainees, as far as the United Kingdom is concerned? Does he think that the Americans have the proper legal authority to continue with their operations in Abu Ghraib, as they appeared to be suggesting this morning?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and other members of the Defence Committee for taking the trouble to visit the facility just outside Basra. I was there last Monday and saw the high standards that are maintained by British military personnel, something that has been reflected upon by the International Committee of the Red Cross.

How many reservists are deployed in Iraq. [179375]

All our reserve forces have performed extremely well when asked to do so in Iraq and elsewhere in the world. I place on record again the House's utmost appreciation for all their efforts and for the continuing support of their employers. As at 16 June, 1,483 reservists were serving in Iraq.

The Minister is absolutely right to pay tribute to reservists in the terms in which he has just done so—[Interruption.]

Order. Hon. Members will have to keep the conversations down. It is unfair to the hon. Gentleman.

Is the Minister satisfied that individual members of the reserve who are part of the tranche of reservists due to go to Iraq in October will receive at least 21 days' notice that they are part of that mobilisation, and can they expect to serve six months, but no more?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware from the lessons-learned process following Operation Telic 1 that we made it clear that the 21-day notice period would be appropriate for reservists and their employers. I anticipate that all those going to Iraq in due course will receive 21 days' notice, and I expect their tour of duty to be six months.

At the early stages, the reservists felt they were very hard done by, as they were expected to stay out there when the forces that they went out with returned to the UK. There are fears in the armed forces that that will lead to greater difficulties in recruiting reservists. What work is the Minister doing to research what the feelings of those reservists are and to ensure that, when they return, they are properly debriefed?

We have a successful mobilisation and demobilisation process at Chilwell. I have seen it and the hon. Gentleman would be a welcome visitor to Chilwell. The latest survey of Territorial Army soldiers shows that 70 per cent. regarded their morale as high or very high. As I made clear on 13 May in the personnel debate, we plan to consult on the review of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 and statutory instrument No. 309 before the summer recess.

If he will make a statement on the forward plans for RAF Menwith Hill. [179376]

A long-term plan is being developed by a joint UK-US team to improve some of the ageing infrastructure on the site. That may lead to the demolition of some of the older buildings and their replacement by modern facilities that, wherever possible, will be more in keeping with the rural landscape. Base authorities are working closely with the local planning authority to agree suitable architectural standards and guidelines. There are no plans to change the base's current role and mission.

The Minister will know that there is some controversy over RAF Menwith Hill. He accepts, I hope, that it is in the interests of and it is the duty of Members of Parliament to ensure that the base operates in the British national interest. Is he therefore content that, when I asked to visit the base, his predecessor told me that he would have to check with the American Administration first and came back most apologetically to tell me that the Americans would not allow me to visit an RAF base? Is it now British policy that the Americans decide whether Members of Parliament can visit RAF bases?

I am not fully aware of all the matter related by the hon. Gentleman concerning his previous request. I would have to look into that to find out the nature of his request why he wanted a visit, what issues he wanted to discuss and the relevance of all that. I will look into his earlier request, but the important thing is not to whip up suspicion about what is undoubtedly an important part of our defence interests as well as those of the US. The installation is important and, as I said, there are no plans to change its role or mission as part of the current reconstruction.