If he will make a statement on the distribution of medals to those who served in the Suez campaign. [184468]

:Distribution of the Suez medal began last November after the publication of Command Paper 5999 in the House on 23 October. As at the week ending 16 July, 40,297 applications had been received and 11,199 medals had been dispatched. I pay tribute to the hard work of all staff at the medal offices who are dealing with the backlog as speedily as possible under the current arrangements for medal distribution.

:I will surprise my hon. Friend not by linking this to the question of an Arctic convoy medal, but by paying tribute to him and the Front-Bench team, I hope, on behalf of hon. Members in all parts of the House, for their superb work in finally awarding the medal to the Suez veterans. That is appreciated by hon. Members of all parties and, indeed, by the veterans themselves. There have been some difficulties and delays, as we would expect on an exercise of this size, but will my hon. Friend tell us how the distribution is going and whether all those brave ex-servicemen will get their medals as soon as possible?

:I endorse my hon. Friend's comments and praise him and many other colleagues from all parts of the House who campaigned so assiduously during 2002 and 2003 for the award of a Suez medal. Let me update the House on the current situation. All applications that are received from Suez veterans are acknowledged on receipt. In the medal offices, these are the assessment dates: in the Royal Navy, 5 February 2004; in the Royal Marines, as the applications are received; the RAF is assessing cases received on 26 November 2003; and the Army Medal Office is currently assessing cases received on 31 October 2003.

I am sure that my constituents in Droitwich will be very pleased to hear the Minister's tribute to their work in issuing the canal zone medal—one of some 300 to 400 medals issued by the Army Medal Office in Droitwich Spa—but may I tell him perhaps one last time that the proposal to close the Army Medal Office and move it to RAF Innsworth is bound to throw into chaos the distribution of the Suez canal zone medal and other medals? Whatever the long-term merits of moving the Medal Office, please may I ask him not to do it now?

Again, I reject the hon. Gentleman's comments and pleas in relation to the future of the Army Medal Office. It is essential that we establish the Ministry of Defence medal office, and we have taken the decision to establish it at RAF Innsworth. I believe that it will lead to a greater and more beneficial production of medals for veterans, both Suez veterans and those who are leaving our forces at present. I plan to make a statement to the House when it returns in September about the progress that we will have made during the summer.

What assessment his Department has made of the role of local regiments in encouraging recruitment. [184469]

Local regiments play a significant role in encouraging recruitment through regional recruiting teams—I am sorry—through regimental recruiting teams. [Interruption.] Since their formal establishment in early 2002, those teams have contributed greatly to the Army meeting its recruiting targets. Potential recruits list regimental recruiting teams as one of the top reasons why they contact recruiting offices.

Given the very strong local ties that the Duke of Wellington's Regiment has with Calder Valley and Halifax and the impact that that has on recruitment to our armed forces, will my hon. Friend assure me that the Duke of Wellington's Regiment will retain its single cap badge? If he cannot give me that assurance, will he at least ensure that relevant officers in the Army are allowed to participate in any discussion about the future of their regiments?

I am pleased to hear of my hon. Friend's interest in her local regiment, and I can assure her that, in the coming days and weeks, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence makes his announcement, we will take her comments into consideration.

Is the Minister aware that one of his very senior civil servants recently caused considerable offence by referring to cap badges as logos? Does the Minister understand that soldiers will die for their Queen and country and for their ideals and they may even die for their regiment, but they will not die for cap badges?

I am afraid that I am not familiar with the comments to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but I understand the point that he makes.

The Minister may be aware that there is concern down in Dorset at the possible demise of the Devon and Dorset Regiment and its merger with other west country regiments. Can he assure me that any such decision will be made by the Army and not by Ministers or accountants?

All I can say to my hon. Friend is that, when announcements are due to be made, they will properly be made to the House.

I have a particular interest in this subject as the regimental headquarters of the Black Watch is in my constituency. The Minister will be aware that the regimental system in Scotland has proven its worth time and again, not simply in terms of recruitment, but also in terms of retention and operational worth. Why then are the United Kingdom Government planning to scrap the traditional regimental structure in Scotland?

I do not think that the Government need to take any lessons about defence from the Scottish nationalists. I made the point on my visit to Scotland recently that recruitment is essential to keeping the Army in the public eye and it plays an important and continuing role in ensuring and nurturing applicants, particularly young people from Scotland, who have expressed an interest in joining our armed forces.

Given the enormous success of the relocation of the first battalion of the Welsh Guards to RAF St. Athan in my constituency, does it not make great sense to the cause of recruitment to locate even more units to regions such as south Wales that have such a superb recruitment record?

My hon. Friend will know that it is for the first time in many years—certainly for the first time that I can remember—that that is occurring at RAF St. Athan. That decision was taken by this Government. I also point out that the regimental recruiting teams are an essential part of what we do in all areas, and there are 93 of them across the UK.

Are we to take the Secretary of State's convulsive reaction to the Minister's Freudian slip as confirmation that The Daily Telegraph had it right last Friday?

Perhaps I should say to the hon. Gentleman that believing all that one reads in newspapers is not the best way to pursue matters.

Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Highlanders, who have their headquarters in my constituency? By the end of this year, they will be the best recruited regiment in Scotland. Does he share my view that it is very important to have a strong regional recruitment base and that that is extremely good for the morale of our troops?

I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Highlanders. He will be aware that although some regiments recruit on a regional basis, other regiments or corps recruit on a national basis, and some do both. There is room for all that.

Does the Minister agree that the great strength for well-run recruiting efforts of the local regiments are their proud and often historic links deep inside the counties and cities from which they spring? Will he further accept that these regiments and all that they mean and have meant to our national life will, once disbanded or amalgamated, never again be recreated?

Perhaps patience will be a virtue for the hon. Gentleman. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will say more about these matters later in the week and in the coming weeks. I looked back at Hansard and I saw the quote:

"The numerical strength of the Army should not be regarded as the primary measure of front-line strength. Its operational capability is of prime importance."—[Official Report, 4 July 1995; Vol. 263, c. 131.]

Very prescient and admirable words they were, too. I want to press the Minister again, but thank him for his incitement for me to be patient. However, I would like a little frankness from him for a change. Can he confirm that there has not been a cap on recruitment targets for the Army in the training year 2004–05?

I can absolutely and categorically tell the hon. Gentleman that there is absolutely no freeze on recruitment to the British Army.

I think that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. May I suggest that he reads the latest report by the Army Training and Recruiting Agency, a copy of which I have obtained for greater accuracy? It says:

"During the year under review, recruiting group have done well on recruiting against, it should be noted decreasing targets."

The hon. Gentleman indicated earlier that he still agrees with his quote of nine years ago. [Interruption.] If he is patient, as I said, he might get the answer. I can tell him that the whole Army training strength has increased by more than 3,300 in the past two years. Retention is above average levels and recruitment is buoyant. To answer his earlier question, the Army Training and Recruiting Agency has outperformed against the mandated targets over both of the past two years.

To take us back to the main point behind the question, does my hon. Friend accept that the reorganisation that took place less than five years ago to put the Gloucesters in with the Berkshire and Wiltshire regiment has taken some time to work its way through? That is one thing, and we retain the name "the Gloucesters", but it would be quite different if a proposal were coming forth to merge us yet again into a Wessex regiment. I hope that my hon. Friend will take due note of the concern that was expressed locally about any recruitment if such a proposal were brought forward.

I certainly take note of my hon. Friend's comments. I know something about the Gloucesters because of the regiment's involvement in Korea in the 1950s. I was pleased to meet members of the regiment when I visited Korea last summer for the 50th anniversary celebrations of the end of the Korean war.

How many UK servicemen and women are serving in Bosnia and Herzegovina. [184470]

The United Kingdom currently has around 1,000 service personnel committed to Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in sending to those troops the congratulations and thanks of the House on the courageous and professional job that they do in fiendishly difficult circumstances while peacekeeping in Bosnia? At the end of this year when the SFOR operation under NATO command comes to an end, will British troops be involved in the new EU-sponsored operation? Will he tell us how many troops will be involved then?

The hon. Gentleman asks me to send a message of support to our troops in Bosnia and Herzegovina and I assume that he would extend that to those in the rest of the region. I can certainly do that because I visited those troops only a matter of weeks ago, when I was able to give our warm message of support to them. They are doing a magnificent job, and although there are still issues to be resolved in the region, we are making progress. The EUFOR mission will take forward the progress that is being made and yes, British troops will be involved—we will be leading that mission.

Will my right hon. Friend tell me what progress has been made on dealing with national caveats among some of our EU partners? Can he assure us that when the transfer from SFOR to EUFOR takes place, there will be no diminution of the effectiveness of the forces there in case there are further difficulties in the future?

As ever, my hon. Friend raises an important and key issue relating to the deployment of international forces. National caveats were discussed at the Istanbul summit. It is recognised that they need to be addressed and that solutions need to be found to any blockages that impact adversely on the successful conclusion and implementation of such missions.

Will the Minister confirm that no regiment, battalion or unit involved in operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina, or any active service zone, will return to this country to find that it has been cut? As I am sure he appreciates, rather than representing the grateful thanks of the country, that would be an awful kick in the teeth.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary gave the message for today: the Secretary of State will make an announcement later in the week. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be present to raise his concerns. I suggest that he waits for the full announcement because such issues are better addressed in the round and with consideration of the balance of judgments that have to be made. His party had to make such judgements when it was in government.

If he will make a statement on the support his Department gives to the RAF museum, Hendon. [184471]

The Ministry of Defence sponsors the RAF museum as a non-departmental public body and provides a grant in aid to meet the majority of the museum's running costs. Last year the grant in aid was £6.8 million. In addition, we have supported the museum with various development projects, and most recently we earmarked £1 million in capital funding for a new development at the Cosford site to house an exhibition of the cold war years.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the decision two or three years ago to find additional resources to enable the museum to allow free admission has been extremely successful? Visitor numbers have doubled, with 250,000 attending Hendon and a similar number visiting Cosford—half a million visitors between the two sites. Since the Milestones of Flight and the restored Grahame-White aircraft factory opened—

Too long.

Order. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not take too long over this.

I was going on to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you might like to visit the museum yourself to see how well it is doing. I had expected to ask my hon. Friend the Minister to put his hand in his pocket again to enable some of the galleries to be opened, but I am pleased to say that the money has now come through, so the museum can be fully opened. The museum is grateful to my hon. Friend for that additional help.

As always, I am delighted to thank my hon. Friend for the brevity of his question. I very much enjoyed my visit to his constituency in February when we were campaigning in a local council by-election, and during my visit we drove past the RAF museum. The RAF is rightly proud of its heritage and, as I am sure my hon. Friend will agree following his visit a couple of weeks ago, the museum provides an excellent showcase for that. The relationship with the RAF is mutually beneficial, since the museum actively promotes the Royal Air Force to the general public, as well as to aspiring airmen and airwomen. It is worth noting that the policy of free admission and access for all to both national museums and RAF museums is a policy of this Government, reinforced by the Chancellor's recent spending review. We are proud of that policy, but the Opposition continue to object.

While the whole House will be pleased to hear about the support that the Government are giving to the RAF museum, does the Minister agree that if the cuts to the RAF that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is to announce on Wednesday are as deep and damaging as we all believe they will be, the spending on the RAF museum will have to increase by an enormous amount?

I am afraid the hon. Gentleman did not hear the words—

Order. I hope that hon. Members will not revert to a previous question in their supplementary.

I agree, Mr. Speaker. I was about to give the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) the same advice as I gave to the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) earlier about not believing all the speculation.

If he will make a statement on the current situation in Iraq. [184472]

I have to inform the House that a United Kingdom Puma helicopter crashed this morning at the airfield in Basra. I regret to report that there has been one British fatality. It appears unlikely that hostile action was the cause, although it is too soon to confirm any other details.

May I offer my condolences to the family of the Puma helicopter victim this morning. I am sure that other Members join me in doing so.

The Butler report was a thorough examination of the relevant facts. I am sure that, if the hon. Gentleman looked at the report properly and comprehensively instead of seeking to select certain aspects of it, he would recognise that Lord Butler and those who joined him in producing the report did not criticise any individual member of the Government or, indeed, any individual civil servant. It is wrong of the hon. Gentleman to come to the House and make such attacks on an individual who does not have the opportunity to respond.

May I also offer my condolences with regard to the tragic loss that the British Army has suffered today?

I was not, I hope, painting a rosy picture to the House. I recognise that there are still significant security challenges to be faced, but they are now being faced increasingly by Iraqis themselves. I hope that they, like the Prime Minister, whom my hon. Friend mentioned, are in the best position to judge the appropriateness of the action being taken. I am sure that the Iraqi Prime Minister is right to recognise that it is necessary to take action against those who will attack not only coalition forces, but, increasingly, the Iraqis themselves. It is not surprising, therefore, when the Iraqi Prime Minister authorises the sort of action that is necessary to deal with those attacks.

The situation is indeed still serious in Iraq, with the news of the car bomb this morning, and the shooting and downing of the Puma helicopter, to which the Secretary of State referred. We send our condolences to the persons involved.

Order. I do not think that the Secretary of State should air that view at the moment. There is a debate tomorrow on the Butler report. This question is about the current situation in Iraq.

I have made this point before, but I make no apology for repeating it: whatever views right hon. and hon. Members took of the decision to take military action against the regime of Saddam Hussein, the situation that confronts us now is the one that the hon. Gentleman referred to; it is vital that we rebuild the country, provide stability for the Iraqi people and restore Iraq as a rightful member of the international community. Right hon. and hon. Members will, understandably and rightly, have different views of that decision to take military action, but surely we must all now unite in wanting to see Iraq restored as a stable, tolerant and ultimately democratic country.

May I join colleagues from all parts of the House in what they have said with regard to my right hon. Friend's comments about the person lost in the Puma this morning?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that vital point on behalf of not only the Cheshires, but all those who are currently serving with such distinction in Iraq and, indeed, other theatres around the world. I assure him that efforts have been made to learn the lessons of previous conflicts and deal with the stresses that arise as a result of the horrors seen by members of our armed forces. If those efforts are not producing the right results, we will re-examine the matter, but efforts have been made to learn the lessons.

Conservative Members also send our condolences with regard to the crew of the Puma. From previous questions, it is obvious that the British sector in Iraq is currently stabilised by the professionalism and bravery of the British armed forces. Given Conservative Members' experiences of talking and listening to members of the British armed forces, the Secretary of State should think very seriously about turning the British Army into regional regiments to deal with manning in Iraq. That would undermine the morale of regiments such as the Black Watch, the Royal Welch Fusiliers and others, which will turn into unloved regional regiments, rather like the unloved regional assemblies.

Order. The hon. Gentleman is going back to Question 2.

May I add my condolences on the helicopter crash? My right hon. Friend knows that the monitoring board was established in May 2003 to ensure that Iraqi oil revenues were not misused, but we now hear that a report prepared by KPMG suggests that as much as $1.4 billion may have gone to the American contractor Halliburton. If that allegation proves to be true, does he agree that that is a scandalous misappropriation and will he call for further investigations?

Those allegations are subject to investigation. It is important that we ensure that oil revenues are used properly for the purpose agreed by the United Nations.

If he will make a statement on the criteria used in awarding procurement contracts. [184473]

Our procurement policy is driven by the need to provide the armed forces with the equipment they require at best value for money for the taxpayer. As set out in the Government's defence industrial policy, acquisition decisions are driven principally by cost, operational effectiveness and affordability.

The Secretary of State knows that a £1.5 billion contract will be awarded for the Ministry of Defence support vehicle. I pay tribute to the work of our servicemen and women, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan. They should get the best vehicle that money can buy, which should have been battle tested in Iraq and Afghanistan and proven to have the highest reliability and technical capability. Why have none of the four main bidders' vehicles been trialled?

A decision will be made soon on the support vehicle competition—the bids are in the final stage of their evaluation, and it would be inappropriate to say any more. As I indicated a moment ago, affordability is undoubtedly one of the key criteria for any equipment. No doubt the hon. Lady will make those representations to her Front Benchers, who propose to cut the defence budget by something in the order of £2.7 billion, which is rather more than the total cost of that project.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the average age of a skilled worker on the Tyne is more than 50, so there is a lot of hope in the north that the proposed aircraft carrier project will do something to rectify that? Can he assure me that the aircraft carrier programme will go ahead on time and as the MOD originally specified?

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I have set out in a written answer today our determination to proceed with the carrier contract. I am confident that the contract will provide a significant amount of shipbuilding work, not only for my hon. Friend's constituency, but for many other shipbuilding constituencies around the country.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the defence procurement budget is running at between £9 billion and £10 billion a year? Can he assure the House that the Defence Procurement Agency, which took over from the Procurement Executive in 1999, is meeting its main objective of buying weapons systems and platforms and delivering them on time, within budget, and to specific standards?

I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. I regret to tell the House that, particularly in relation to some of the older contracts signed under previous Governments, there has been some slippage as a result of the poor financial standards that were imposed—poor financial standards of the kind that we get used to, unfortunately, from the hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench colleagues, who want to cut the total defence budget by roughly a quarter of the amount that he said was available for procurement. Perhaps he could ask them which particular projects they intend to cut.

What are the implications of my right hon. Friend's opening remarks for the shipbuilding programmes that are under way at Swan Hunter and at Govan, and for the proposed extensions to that work?

We have a very extensive programme of new shipbuilding to provide the Royal Navy with the latest and best equipment for frigates and for carriers. Members of the Royal Navy are hugely enthusiastic about the forward programme, which, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn), will provide significant job opportunities right across the shipbuilding industry.

May I ask the Secretary of State about military helicopter procurement? This time last year, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) and I, under the auspices of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, spent the week with the joint helicopter force based at Basra airport, and learned at first hand how difficult it is to fly helicopters in the intense summer heat in that part of the world. What plans, if any, do the Government have to procure helicopters for use by the Iraq military, instead of by British and other coalition forces, so that they can patrol the skies of their own country without the need to use British helicopters?

Extensive programmes are available to Iraq to provide the right kind of equipment for its armed forces once the training that they are receiving is of the necessary complexity to enable them to operate sophisticated equipment such as helicopters. At this stage, I cannot say precisely when those helicopters will be delivered to the Iraqis, but I know that that is in the programme.

Further to the question by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman), when will my right hon. Friend come to the House to justify the continued existence of legacy projects that are running massively over-time and over-budget? We know that they were initiated under the previous Administration, but are they needed now, and at such cost?

I will not give the House a long list of the various procurement projects that are under way, but I can say that, even allowing for certain of the legacy projects that were subject to significant delay before this Government were elected, we will continue with those that meet a justifiable military need. However, we have tried to get them under control in terms of cost and time, because that is crucial in delivering their capability to our armed forces.

What plans he has to reassess the contract for the future strategic tanker aircraft private finance initiative. [184474]

We are currently assessing whether placing a private finance initiative service contract with AirTanker Ltd. will provide the best value for money solution for the future strategic tanker aircraft project. No final decisions have been taken.

I thank the Minister for that answer. Can the House therefore assume that the question whether to go ahead with the project is still in the melting pot, as well as the decision on to whom the contract should be granted? If he intends to go ahead with the project, but is still considering who should do the work, I urge him to look again at the preferred option and to consider the alternative option of using refurbished aircraft adapted in Cambridge, in my constituency.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced to the House in January 2004, AirTanker Ltd. has been judged to offer the best prospect of providing a value-for-money PFI solution. However, several detailed issues remain to be resolved on this complex PFI project before a final decision is taken. We are resolved to proceed with it once that assessment is completed. Clearly, air refuelling is a key military capability and it is important to take the time necessary to make the right decision for the armed forces and the taxpayer. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman agreed with that. We shall make further announcements when appropriate.

We are considering an important contract. Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the location of the base, where maintenance will be carried out, is also important for supply and back-up to the fleet? I believe that Warton is the right place for maintaining and basing the aircraft.

My hon. Friend can be assured of the importance with which we view the contract. The accompanying base and support mechanisms are clearly part of any solution, but my hon. Friend, like other hon. Members, will have to wait for the final announcement.

What discussions he has had with the Department of Trade and Industry about the siting of electricity wind generators. [184475]

The Ministry of Defence maintains an extremely close working relationship with the Department of Trade and Industry on wind energy issues. Both Departments are members of the wind energy, defence and civil aviation interests working group, which also includes representatives from the Civil Aviation Authority, the National Air Traffic Service and the British Wind Energy Association. We also work jointly with the industry on round 2 offshore wind farm developments. Later this week, the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services and I will meet representatives of the wind energy industry.

I do not think that a working group measures up to the scale of the problem. Does the Under-Secretary realise that wind generators are ugly, unnecessary, expensive and a threat to everything that flies? I do not simply mean birds and bats but aircraft, especially military aircraft. They also interfere with military radar. Rather than objecting on a case-by-case basis, will the Department create a presumption against any more of those gimmicky contraptions on the ground of good defence as well as that of saving the environment?

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that every proposal for wind farm development is considered on a case-by-case basis rather than according to an overall presumption. The Ministry of Defence does not have a policy of automatically refusing proposals and we encourage developers to work with officials from both the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Trade and Industry to determine whether a mutually acceptable solution can be found. That is a sensible and practical way forward.

The Under-Secretary knows both that we are delighted to hear that and that the Energy Bill had to be amended to include another clause to ensure that wind farms were not built in shipping lanes. Wind farms at sea pose a genuine problem for radar. Will my hon. Friend assure me that the Ministry and the Department for Transport are consulting closely with the Department of Trade and Industry before making decisions that can be only inimical to defence and transport?

I give my hon. Friend the commitment that she seeks.

RAF Shawbury trains pilots from all three services. What threats do the huge new turbines pose to inexperienced junior pilots who are undertaking training?

We have a proper, consultative process with the industry, which involves eight different tests, to ensure that such matters are considered before we agree to further negotiations about a wind farm. The Ministry of Defence is clearly committed to supporting the Government's renewable energy target of 10 per cent. renewables generation by 2010. We intend to play our part in that.

For what reason no reference was made to the prohibition of hooding of detainees in Iraq in guidance issued to service personnel until 30 September 2003. [184476]

Ministry of Defence training makes it clear that the use of hoods during interrogation and tactical questioning is not permitted. However, hooding as a means of blindfolding where this is militarily justified—for example to prevent prisoners from viewing sensitive areas—has been routine practice in successive conflicts and is considered to be compliant with the relevant international conventions.

I thank the Minister for his reply. He will know that the policy on hooding was changed in September as a result of the death of Baha Mousa, in which that practice was deemed to be a contributory factor. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the International Committee of the Red Cross had previously expressed concerns on the practice of hooding to the British Army? Having failed to act on that advice until it was too late, must not the Government accept their share of responsibility for Mr. Mousa's death?

I am conscious that, every time I answer a question from the hon. Gentleman on this matter, a misinterpretation of what I have said appears in either The Independent or The Independent on Sunday. Either he does not understand my answers or there is a deliberate practice of trying to read too much into them. I do not accept the premise in the opening part of his question, and I must point out that these matters are under investigation, although I understand that he might want to judge people guilty before due process has taken place. He also asked me to confirm that discussions had taken place with the ICRC. Again, I do not think that he has been listening to the answers that have been given in the House. The International Committee of the Red Cross makes it very clear that its dealings with and reports to Governments are confidential, so we cannot discuss the matter and I cannot comment on the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question. If he has been told something different by the ICRC, I hope that he will write to me and we can take the matter up with that body.

Was hooding used following the operation by British troops in Majar al-Kabir in May? Have any complaints been received about that operation and, if so, what has been their nature? Will the Minister say what the proper procedure is following such military action? Is it to remove bodies? Is it to take prisoners if at all possible, and to keep them alive? How are the relatives of the deceased notified—

Order. One supplementary question will suffice.

One of the issues that we have been dealing with is a report from another body, Amnesty International. I replied in detail on 1 July to submissions made by Amnesty across a range of issues, and all that material has been placed in the Library of the House of Commons. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman refers to those detailed responses, and if he wants to write to me further on the back of the detailed examination that is taking place in respect of each of the known complaints and the way in which they are being conducted, perhaps we can get to an established answer that will satisfy him.

If he will make a statement on the future of Rosyth dockyard. [184477]

Rosyth royal dockyard has always carried out a significant element of Royal Navy surface ship refit work, and will continue to do so. I am pleased to announce the decision to award the upkeep contracts for HMS Edinburgh and HMS Walney to BSSL—Babcock Support Services Ltd.—at Rosyth. I pay tribute to the work force and management at Rosyth dockyard for their success in being awarded these contracts.

I sincerely thank my right hon. Friend for giving such excellent news to Rosyth and to Scotland, and for praising the Rosyth work force, who stand out for delivering ships at or below cost, on or before time and to the highest standards. Does he agree that the UK's defence industrial base will benefit from maintaining Rosyth's naval and maritime skills in the lead-up to its playing a major part in the construction of the future aircraft carrier?

Let me pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has been assiduous in supporting the case for Rosyth and has been in almost daily contact with me, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence or the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, the noble Lord Bach. Her hard work has paid off, and she is also right to pay tribute to the work force and management at Rosyth dockyard. As for Rosyth's future shipbuilding capabilities, it is one of the four yards named last year with the potential to be involved in the construction and assembly of the new future aircraft carriers. While I cannot confirm Rosyth's future involvement in the carrier programme at this stage, this is none the less promising for the future.

Does the Minister accept that the future of both Rosyth and Faslane is bound up with that of the strategic nuclear deterrent? While appreciating that specific systems will be decided on in the next Parliament rather than in this one, can he send a signal of encouragement to the communities in Rosyth and Faslane that the Government still accept in principle that Britain should continue to possess a strategic nuclear deterrent as long as other countries have nuclear weapons?

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the White Paper to get the answer to the latter part of his question. I am sure that he will understand that the life cycles of the nuclear deterrent and the boats that carry it last for long years, so the future for many years ahead is assured for those who carry out the support work. I reflect that not so many months ago, I announced the retention of about 1,000 jobs—I think that that is the correct figure—at Faslane for 25 years. We hardly got any recognition in the Scottish press for that statement. I just hope that they report the good news for Rosyth.

Although the Minister's recent announcement about orders being placed is welcome, may I ask him what steps he is taking to investigate claims made by the work force in Rosyth that the playing field is biased against them by unfair subsidies given by the MOD to their competitors? What steps is he taking to end the hunger-and-burst system of orders with the introduction of a best-value system that smoothes out procurement work?

I am not sure whether my hon. Friend heard my original answer, but this is good news for Rosyth. It has won the contract, not lost it, and I am sure that all the other yards may ask whether there is a level playing field in such circumstances. Obviously, if any dockyard or shipbuilder offers substantive evidence to prove bias, we must investigate it. The way in which my hon. Friend poses the question, however, is not based on fact.

If he will make a statement on the implications of the comprehensive spending review for the number of front-line service personnel. [184478]

The spending review settlement will provide an additional £3.7 billion for our armed forces in 2007–08 compared with 2004–05, with average annual real growth of 1.4 per cent. It will allow us to take forward our modernisation plans, so that our forces are ready for the challenges of the 21st century. I expect to announce the detail of our plans to the House on Wednesday.

The spending review suggests that additional funding for front-line staff will come by cutting 15,000 support staff. Is the Secretary of State in a position to say where those redundancies will occur and whether the staff concerned have yet been told?

Obviously, the precise details will be announced on Wednesday. The usual process of consultation will take place: indeed, I attended a meeting this morning with some of the trade unions to discuss with them the ways in which programmes will be taken forward. By and large, given the time scale of the proposals, we hope that it will be possible to ensure that those redundancies occur without involving significant harm to the work force—generally through natural wastage.

But why are we so dependent on Commonwealth recruits, and particularly on recruits from Fiji? I have the figures in front of me, and it appears that the British Army could not function without Fijians? Will the spending review allow for more UK recruits to be attracted into the British Army, and what exactly is the problem with recruitment?

I am sorry that my hon. Friend responds in that way to the valuable contribution that citizens from Commonwealth countries are making, and have always made, to Britain's armed forces. Their contribution to our armed forces is tremendous, and long may that continue. He is also wrong to suggest that there is not an increase in the number of recruits coming from the United Kingdom—that is the fact, and it is revealed in the latest survey of where our recruits come from.

We must wait until Wednesday to find out how large the cuts in numbers and in the training of our armed forces will be, but may I remind the Secretary of State that the last time the Conservatives held a big defence review, just after the Berlin wall came down, there was a war going on in the Gulf? May I suggest that this is no time to be thinking about cuts? Let us see the Iraq crisis through, and think about cutting afterwards.

The fact is that this Government are spending more on defence. We planned to spend more on defence in each of the last six years, and that will continue in the latest spending review round. The Government who directly preceded us could not make such a claim; indeed, they presided over a cut in defence spending of some 15 per cent. That was not during the period immediately after the cold war, but during a period following the Gulf war, when it was clearly necessary for us to improve our armed forces in the light of lessons learned. The hon. Gentleman's comment—which he will no doubt repeat on Wednesday—could be taken a good deal more seriously if he recognised the cuts imposed by Conservative Governments, and also recognised that this Government are significantly increasing our defence spending.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that over the past 20 years this Government's spending round has provided more money for the armed forces than that of any other Government? In fact, the two Opposition parties are set to cut spending. Would my right hon. Friend not describe that as a testament to the Labour party? Is it not the case that defence is safe in Labour's hands?

I would have some difficulty in disagreeing with my hon. Friend, and let me say for the record that I do not intend to. As Conservative Members wind themselves up and as those in Conservative central office prepare the script for next Wednesday's announcement, they should recognise that we are seeing a sustained increase in defence spending over a longer period than was ever possible under the Conservatives in recent times. That is something of which we are proud, and on which Conservative Members should congratulate us.

When he expects to make a decision on the future structure of the Defence Storage and Distribution Agency. [184482]

In the light of recent commercial developments, a decision on the future defence supply chain can be expected early in 2005.

Does the Minister accept that a trading fund could both provide the Ministry of Defence with substantial savings in defence logistic procurement and ensure that Ministers retain the assets in their control? Does he appreciate that many people are keen for Ministers to retain those assets? If Margaret Thatcher were Prime Minister, she would not have lost control of crucial assets of this kind. I find it rather worrying when Ministers are moving further to the right than me.

I will not refer to past Tory Administrations. We have already had a good history lesson today about the impact of some of them, under Lady Thatcher and of course John Major, on the armed forces. We need only refer to the spending profiles. The hon. Gentleman should take stock before praying Lady Thatcher in aid.

What assessment he has made of the procurement implications of the Defence White Paper. [184483]

The defence White Paper made clear that our future force development process is focused on capability and the need to deliver flexible, deployable and hard-hitting forces to perform a range of military tasks. Our procurement plans are configured to provide the equipment required to achieve that goal. I will be making a more detailed statement on Wednesday following the results of the 2004 spending review.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State. What proposals does he have to provide airborne early warning cover to the new aircraft carriers?

The way in which modern ships are provided with defence is quite different from the way in which the previous generation of ships were protected—I believe that is what the hon. Gentleman is alluding to. A multi-layered approach will ensure the safety of ships on deployment.

Will my right hon. Friend give us an update on the MARS—military afloat reach and sustainability—project and the new ships that are going to be built?

I will send my hon. Friend a detailed account of that project and how it is proceeding.