If he will make a statement on levels of overtime working by military police officers at AWE Aldermaston in the last 12 months. [58670]

There are no military police officers stationed at AWE Aldermaston. However, Ministry of Defence police are stationed there, and during the calendar month of May 2002, 9,837 overtime hours were worked.

I hope that the Minister agrees that an excessive amount of overtime seems to have been worked at Aldermaston in recent years. Given what happened on 11 September last year and the extra concerns that people living around Aldermaston have that a similar attack might be launched against the site, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also agree that it is important that we reduce the amount of overtime being worked. If not, some of the people there, who are working almost double time in the most excessive cases, will not be fit to do the job of carrying a gun and guarding such an important site.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that excessive overtime is undesirable. Overtime hours at AWE Aldermaston have traditionally been higher than the force average because of the underbearing of officers at that establishment. However, I am sure that he will pleased to know that I plan to post 31 recruits into that station, effective from 9 September 2002, joining four who were posted in recently. A further intake of recruits is scheduled for September 2002 and a number of those probationers are expected to be posted to AWE Aldermaston.

Has the Minister been able to make any assessment of the likely costs of overtime at the establishment if stories in The Observer yesterday are correct that a nuclear weapons factory is to be established at Aldermaston in the near future? If that is so, will there be a statement and debate in the House before such an important decision is taken?

I am happy to say that the statements were incorrect. Work is going on at Aldermaston, of which we have made no secret, to maintain the reliability of our nuclear deterrent, as we are faced with the fact that we no longer test these weapons. Anything else in the story was, I am afraid, entirely fanciful.

Given the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) about security at Aldermaston, can the Minister confirm that the reports raised in The Observer yesterday were not new but simply a rehash of what was already known? Given that the Government's current policy on the security of bases is to parcel out security away from the military police such as those who guard Aldermaston either to the military provost guard service or private security companies, does the hon. Gentleman agree that that policy is now untenable? Is it not the case that the British people might begin to question the commitment of troops overseas in the war against terrorism if we cannot guarantee security at our own nuclear installations?

It is interesting that a party that gave us precious little help when we were trying to extend the powers of the Ministry of Defence police should now attempt to criticise us—on entirely spurious grounds, I may add—for the way in which they work. We need no lessons from the Liberal Democrat party nor, for that matter, from Greenpeace on the level of security that we maintain at our establishments—which, I can assure the hon. Gentleman, are robust.

Does my hon. Friend appreciate that many Labour Members will be disappointed by his comment regarding Aldermaston and further developments of nuclear weapons? Does he also appreciate that this is hardly the right message to send to Pakistan and India at the moment?

I point out again that there is no new development of nuclear weapons going on at Aldermaston. We are ensuring that our nuclear deterrent is reliable and capable of being deployed. That involves a great deal of careful work to ensure that there is no chance of having to go back to testing the weapons physically. I should have thought that my hon. Friend would agree with us on that point.

What discussions he had with the Prime Minister of Nepal on his recent visit to the UK on the question of military help to Nepal; and if he will make a statement. [58671]

Prime Minister Deuba of Nepal called on my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for International Development and myself on 13 May. Mr. Deuba outlined the current situation in Nepal and said that poverty reduction was their overall priority, including health, education, and provision of water. He stated that Nepal needed assistance in three areas: economic development, security and the mobilisation of international support for Nepal. On the security front, it was acknowledged that Nepal needed help in logistics and communications.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Nepal is a good ally of the United Kingdom—for many years, the sons of Nepal have been recruited into the Gurkha regiment and are now recognised as the finest fighters in the world. Nepal re-established its democracy in 1990. Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that during his visit to the UK, Prime Minister Deuba outlined the internal problems that Nepal is having with the Maoist terrorists and requested help in the form of training their forces as well as providing helicopters and other technical equipment? Does my right hon. Friend accept that much more needs to be done if we are to help Nepal defend its villages from terrorists? What more help can we give to ensure that democracy and freedom apply in all the villages in Nepal?

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He is right to highlight the good support that we have received from Nepal and our good relationship with that country over many, many years. The Gurkha regiments have served with distinction in every theatre in which they have been involved, from the Falkland Islands to current operations in Bosnia.

May I join the Minister in paying tribute to the record of Gurkha soldiers, in particular the Gurkha Rifles, especially in the light of the recent anniversaries of the triumphs in the Falklands? However, when Nepal is in such need of our help, will the Minister tell us why the first Gurkha reinforcement company has been disbanded, why the second one will be disbanded next year and why the third and final Gurkha reinforcement company will be disbanded the year after next?

I have set out all the areas in which we seek to give assistance to Nepal and, in terms of the strength of the British Army, they are kept constantly under review. I am happy to set out at length for the hon. Gentleman the reasons why those changes have taken place.

In the Minister's discussions with the Prime Minister of Nepal about possible military assistance to help to defeat the Maoist guerrilla campaign that seeks to destroy democracy in Nepal, did the Government again raise the question of the welfare of ex-British Army Gurkhas in Nepal? For example, did the right hon. Gentleman discuss how Britain might help to end the intimidation and extortion to which some of those loyal former servants of the Crown have been subjected by the Gurkha Army Ex-Servicemen's Association—a Marxist-Leninist organisation which speaks only for a small minority of former British Army soldiers and whose claim against the British Government for discrimination is being advocated by the wife of our Prime Minister?

On the latter point, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the way in which members of this country's legal profession are allocated work. If he is asking for a change in that, he should be raising the matter with a different Minister—if that is his point of view—although I suspect that some of his hon. Friends may be somewhat reluctant to make a change.

If he will make a statement on the replacement of the Royal Navy's carriers. [58672]

The CVF—carrier vessel (future)—project is progressing well and we remain fully committed to it as part of our extensive programme of new naval shipbuilding. It remains our plan to replace the existing Invincible class carriers with two new, larger and much more capable carriers that will enter service in 2012 and 2015 respectively. Risk reduction and design work on CVF is well advanced. Early next year, we expect to be in a position to select a preferred prime contractor from the two consortiums currently competing, and to approve investment for the build programme at the end of 2003.

Does the Minister plan to sell the current HMS Invincible—perhaps to India—to help pay the bill, and if so. when?

Under current plans, Invincible will remain in service until at least 2010. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that no discussions have taken place with anybody about the sale of any of our carriers.

May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the bid by BAE Marine Systems to build the new carriers on the Clyde and, in particular, the envisaged use of Inch Green dry dock in Greenock? He will be aware that that is one of the most advanced dry docks and deep-water births in Europe and that it pioneered the welding together of mass hulls of ships in the early 1970s, with oil tankers. So may I tell him that, at Greenock, we have a readily available work force, the facilities and the experience, and all we need now are the orders?

My hon. Friend will know that I am well aware of the quality of shipbuilding available on the Clyde, particularly in his constituency. It is however still too early in the programme for us to assess the full impact that CVF will have on shipbuilding jobs; what I can say, of course, is that it remains a tremendous opportunity for shipyards throughout the United Kingdom.

The House will be very glad to hear the Minister's reassurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) that he has no plans to sell. HMS Invincible to the Indians, or indeed to anyone else, but I am just a shade puzzled by an article in The Sunday Times, dated 2 June. Under the headline "Aircraft carrier on sale to India", it went on to tell us that

"the aircraft carrier, along with naval Sea Harrier jets to fly from it, is top of Delhi's…shopping list…

MoD officials have discussed with their Indian counterparts the possibility of selling the ship, which would help to pay for Britain's two new replacement 'super-carriers'."

I have already set out the Government's position very clearly, and I am not used to having my word questioned in the House. All I can say to the hon. Gentleman, to try to lighten the blow, is that I am often puzzled by some of the stories that appear in The Sunday Times.

The Minister will be aware of the quality of the work force at the Clyde submarine base and the need to ensure the capacity of that base continues. Given that considerable changes have been taking place in the past few months and that the work force need to look forward to stability in the base's capacity, will he tell us how the contract for Astute class submarines will be awarded?

I am well aware of my hon. Friend's interest in such issues, but I am unable at present to give him any further enlightenment on the basing of the Astute class submarines.

What will the replacement carriers be carrying?

Oddly enough, things that fly. The primary aircraft will be the future joint combat aircraft. The Lockheed Martin joint strike fighter has been identified as the aircraft with the best potential to fill that role. The ships will also carry maritime airborne surveillance and control aircraft and helicopters from all three services in a variety of roles.

What recent progress he has made with recruiting additional pilots. [58673]

:Armed forces' recruitment of pilots is such that, in financial year 2001–02, the recruiting exceeded demanding targets. We are on course to meet fully the pilot recruitment target for this year.

Why have the Government reduced the trained requirement for the Royal Air Force from 54,530 to 49,990 since the strategic defence review?

Of course, manning and training requirements are constantly kept under review. We face a number of issues, one of which is, of course, recruitment. I have said in answering the hon. Gentleman's specific question—in which I would have thought he had an interest, but clearly not—recruiting is very high for pilots. We are addressing retention with a wide range of measures, and already the indications are that they will prove successful, but only time will tell just how successful.

Will the Minister consider using additional resources, possibly raised from the commercial use of RAF bases, to help in the retention and training of pilots? Will he perhaps consider instructing RAF Strike Command to widen its ongoing feasibility study into this issue to include RAF Kinloss in my constituency? That would not only offer a possible new revenue stream to help in the retention and training of pilots, but boost desperately needed commercial landing options in the north of Scotland.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are considering the use of such airfields, but the primacy would be in terms of strategic and military usage. It would be wrong to rule out any option that would enable best use of our existing assets, but that must not undermine or work against that which we ask our armed forces to deliver from those bases.

If he will make a statement on the A340 Air Tanker. [58674]

The future strategic tanker aircraft is planned to replace our current air-to-air refuelling fleet. Two consortiums have submitted bids for this prospective private finance initiative project: AirTanker Ltd., which has proposed the use of Airbus A330 aircraft; and the Tanker Transport Service Company Ltd., which has proposed Boeing 767 aircraft.

My hon. Friend will understand that these are uncertain times for the aerospace industry. May I therefore express regret on behalf of my constituents who work at Broughton, however understandable the reasons for the delay in going ahead with the project? Will my hon. Friend tell me when he expects to make an announcement on preferred bidder status? Will he assure me that, when he examines the bids, he will consider value for money over the whole PFI period and not just the initial capital costs?

We are committed to pursuing a PFI solution to the FSTA requirement as long as it provides the required operational capability at best value for money. The project is currently in a competitive assessment phase. This is one of the largest and most innovative PFIs currently being considered by my Department, and it is small wonder, given its complexity, that it is taking the companies bidding longer than we first expected to come forward with detailed proposals. I assure my hon. Friend, however, that we shall consider those very carefully, and that, whatever solution we arrive at to this requirement, we will ensure that it provides the best answer to our needs.

May I point out to the Under-Secretary that new aircraft, in the form of the A330 200 series, would offer by far the best option, both industrially and technically, inasmuch as they would be new aeroplanes as opposed to refurbished old Boeing 767s? They are appropriate for the proven drogue system, with a drogue under each wing to refuel two aircraft at a time, and have a bigger fuel uplift, too. From every point of view, therefore, they would be the superior option.

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. What we are concerned with, however, is arriving at the best solution overall. The requirement will be intended to fly for something like 27 or 28 years. It is therefore absolutely crucial that we get it right before we embark on what, as I have said, will be one of the most expensive projects in which we have been involved.

What recent assessment he has made of the security situation in Sierra Leone; and if he will make a statement. [58675]

The security situation in Sierra Leone since the holding of credible and peaceful presidential and parliamentary elections on 14 May has been encouraging. Our forces have played an important role in restoring stability, through their programme of advice, training and support to the Sierra Leone armed forces and Ministry of Defence. There is much work still to do, however, if we are to achieve our objectives of developing a professional, effective and accountable armed forces and MOD, which are sustainable without substantial external assistance. The UK-led international military advisory and training team will, therefore, continue to help build the capacity of the Sierra Leone armed forces and MOD over the longer term.

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his colleagues on the decisive action that our Government took two years ago to defend and secure democracy in Sierra Leone? May I also congratulate our armed forces on the work that they have been doing there? Will he indicate further how long it will take before we can be absolutely confident that this job is fully completed?

My hon. Friend is right to give plaudits to our armed forces. The United Nations force—UNAMSIL—has 17,500 men in the country and it has also played a role.

Does the Minister agree with the assessment of many of those who have served in Sierra Leone that there can be no long-term settlement to the troubles of that country until all the diamond mines are returned to Government control? Does he agree with that assessment? If so, what are the British Government doing about it?

That question moves away from the military role that our armed forces and the MOD will play in all that. There are key components in making that country whole again and gaining control of one of the key—perhaps the key—drivers of the economy is paramount. We have to consider the way in which that can be best achieved.

I am bound to say that the diamond mines have an impact on the security situation in Sierra Leone. They underline the heavy commitment that we may have to make if the situation in Sierra Leone deteriorates again.

We fulfil our commitments everywhere our people are asked to be deployed. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the leader of the Conservative party—when he had the role that the hon. Gentleman now undertakes—criticised what we were doing in Macedonia. He said that it was a step too far and that we could not deliver our objectives in 30 days and get out within that time frame. We did that, because of the capabilities and the planning of the military chiefs who deploy our people. We are more than satisfied that we can continue to meet our commitments. Clearly all commitments and the capability in reaching strength have to be kept under review, because we have to seek to meet the targets that we set. That is our objective.

I remind the Minister that the original commitment to Sierra Leone was for a few months but, years later, we are still there. He also declined to recommit to the SDR target of 108,500 and, in fact, the figures published at the end of last month show an Army trained strength of only 100,900 and that the Government are working to a reduced target of 107,900. Why have the Government secretly abandoned the 108,500 target set in 1998 and how will he achieve any target given that Labour has managed to add a net total of merely 30 men to Army manpower over the past four years?

A number of points are raised within that question. I know that it is not the place of the hon. Gentleman to give answers at the Dispatch Box, but if he is suggesting that we should not have continued to deliver in Sierra Leone because of all the other elements that he brought into play—the implication of his question is that we should withdraw because of manning strengths or if the situation deteriorates—I would like to debate that matter with him. There is no SDR target with the figure that he quoted. He has got that wrong as well.

The adjutant-general told the Select Committee on 1 November 2000:

"The figure we are working to is 108,500".

"Overstretch is trying to do too much with too little manpower…additional pressures from persistent overstretch contribute to higher exit rates from the Armed Forces."

"to improve recruitment and retention so that our units are properly manned",

"That era of decline is behind us."

Order. The question is too long.

I do not know which question the hon. Gentleman wants me to answer—[HON. MEMBERS: "All of them."] Well, I shall try to do that, but certainly not at the Dispatch Box now.

Order. Just answer the question on Sierra Leone.

The hon. Gentleman asked many questions; I am not sure, however, that there was one on Sierra Leone. He just kept dropping in those two words to demonstrate a relationship with his set question.

What recent assessment he has made of the threat to the UK of a missile strike containing (a) biological, (b) chemical and (c) nuclear warheads. [58678]

We take very seriously the ambitions of certain states to acquire weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. We recognise that some states of concern may already be capable of targeting United Kingdom forces deployed in areas close to them and of targeting the territory of some of our friends and allies.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm the long-standing view of successive British Governments, both Conservative and Labour, that we would not use nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive strike? Does he agree that as far as biological and chemical weapons go, the establishment of a proper control and inspection regime should be at the top of the world's agenda and that those countries, such as the United States, that sabotage that kind of regime put not only themselves at risk, but the rest of us as well?

I can confirm that there has been no change in the essential rules that we follow on the use of nuclear weapons. I have made it clear before how important it is to recognise that they would be used only in what are described as extreme conditions of self-defence. I want to emphasise that it does not help the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons to spell out precisely what those circumstances might be. I can stress, however, that nuclear weapons would be used proportionately and consistently with our obligations in international law.

Given the historic agreement between Russia and NATO, does the Secretary of State support the US decision to withdraw from the anti-ballistic missile treaty last December, or does he support the Labour Members who have been criticising it so much?

As I have consistently said to the House, the ABM treaty is a matter between the parties: the United States and, formerly, the Soviet Union, now its successor state, Russia. In those circumstances, it is not a matter for the British Government to make observations about the appropriateness or otherwise of that treaty having come to an end. However, the fact that there is now an agreement to effect a very substantial reduction in the offensive weapons systems available to both Russia and the US must be cause for congratulation, and it is a great success.

Both the MOD's White Paper and the national intelligence estimate to the US Senate conclude that the missile threat is very remote compared with the threat posed by smuggled weapons of mass destruction. Our Chief of the Defence Staff and his predecessor are among the many experts who have expressed doubts about missile defence. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be wise to base British defence policy on military intelligence, on intelligence in a broader sense and on British interests, and not on a desire to appease the obsessions of the US Republican hawks?

If my hon. Friend was referring, as I think he was, to the prospect of the United Kingdom becoming involved in missile defence, I am sure that he knows my answer better than I do. For the avoidance of doubt, I shall repeat it: we have not been asked to participate in any such system, and unless and until we are, our position remains that we wait to see what system the US decides on.

The Secretary of State will agree that the assessment of any threat to the United Kingdom from any source depends heavily on the competence of our intelligence services—MI5, MI6 and our Army special forces. Is he aware that a deliberate black propaganda campaign is being carried out by a number of newspapers and by a television programme, to be shown later this week, to blacken the reputation of special forces who have served in Northern Ireland—the same special forces who served in Afghanistan? What is the Ministry of Defence doing in a proactive, positive way—

Order. The hon. Gentleman's question is far too wide.

If he will make a statement on the F680 procedure. [58679]

The MOD form 680 procedure allows defence exporters voluntarily to seek preliminary Government advice at the marketing stage on the likely prospects for eventual approval of an export licence. The procedure is also the mechanism by which the MOD authorises the release of United Kingdom classified military information in support of marketing activity.

May I ask the Secretary of State about the use of this procedure in relation to the sale of the air traffic control system to Tanzania? The preliminary clearance under the procedure was given in August 1997 without any consultation with, or even the knowledge of, the Department for International Development. On the basis of that preliminary clearance, BAE Systems entered a binding contract with the Tanzanian Government; Barclays provided a soft loan; approximately $15 million was paid over and most of the equipment was built, thereby presenting the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry with a fait accompli when it came to deciding the export licence application. Is that how the F680 procedure is supposed to operate, and if so, is not there a need for urgent reform? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that preliminary clearance—

Order.

The assessment took place in July 1997, as the hon. Gentleman said. Sustainable development was not a specific factor to be taken into account when considering F680 applications, although the impact on the economy of the recipient country was. Anything else in his question is a matter between the company that sold the equipment and the Tanzanian Government who bought it, not a matter for the Ministry of Defence. As I said, we do not give clearance: we give guidance.

If he will make a statement on the grounds on which his Department opposes wind farm planning applications. [58680]

Every proposal is considered individually. The criteria for that case-by-case consideration is that of the effect of the development on the ability to train our pilots safely, and on operational capability. The Ministry of Defence is also mindful of the potential impact on microwave link communication and Met Office radars.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Whereas the Ministry of Defence has objected to nearly half the applications for wind farms in this country, there are 6,000 wind farms in Denmark, none of which has been objected to on the ground that radar might be interfered with. Given that the Government need to increase renewable energy drastically if we are to meet our Kyoto targets, will he try to learn lessons from the Danes so that the Ministry of Defence is not such an obstruction to the Government meeting their environmental targets?

I am not sure about lessons from the Danes. One lesson that I might take from them is that they build their windmills in flat areas similar to the countryside around Swindon rather than on hill crests in Scotland, where they would impinge on the environment in which I like to take my leisure.

Is the Minister aware that aircraft, especially from RAF Marham, regularly fly very low over the north-west part of my constituency and across the Wash? Is he aware that there is a planning application for a number of wind turbines onshore, in the area around Hunstanton, and that another has been submitted for 60 turbines offshore in the Wash, very near the RAF bombing range? What is his view, especially on the latter application and its potential effect on the viability of that bombing range?

I cannot say that I have looked into the bombing range, although given the number of precision munitions that we buy nowadays, we might be able to build closer to it than we could in the past. Of the 18 offshore applications received so far, we have objected to five. That shows that we take seriously our role as a Government who are trying to support renewable energy.

If he will make a statement on the relationship between NATO and Russia. [58681]

Last month saw an historic transformation of the NATO-Russia relationship, with the first meeting at the Rome summit of the new NATO-Russia Council. That is a major step towards the alliance's long-standing goal of building a secure, co-operative and democratic Euro-Atlantic area. We welcome the very positive approach that has been adopted by Russia in establishing the NRC, and all allies look forward to working with Russian colleagues as equal partners in areas of common interest.

I welcome closer co-operation with Russia on security matters, but I have two questions for the Secretary of State. If Russia were to be attacked by another country, would the NRC be convened immediately, and what obligations, if any, would NATO have to go to Russia's defence?

There is no specific agreement to cover either of those eventualities; I can see no specific reason why it would be necessary to convene an NRC meeting in the event of Russia being attacked, but if the existing members of the council judge that useful and appropriate, that could well occur in appropriate circumstances. Similarly, the article 5 guarantee only affects members of the NATO alliance, and so does not apply to the NATO-Russia Council.

Clearly, the warming of relations between Russia and NATO is critical at a time when we face the threat of international terrorism on an unprecedented scale. However, does the Secretary of State agree that it is also important to remember that NATO is first and foremost a military alliance? While welcoming former adversaries into association with NATO, we must also bear it in mind that, should democracy in Russia take a backward step, our arrangements should not compromise the ability of the original NATO countries to defend themselves.

That must be right. However, it is equally right to pursue the opportunity for closer co-operation between NATO and Russia, not least because it flowed from the appalling events of 11 September. Specifically, there is an agreement to discuss techniques and measures to deal with global terrorism, which must be welcome to all concerned.

Given the formation of the NATO-Russia Council and the likelihood of a large increase in NATO membership at the Prague summit at the end of the year, has my right hon. Friend made an assessment of the need to change the decision-making structures of NATO in the interests of security and military efficiency?

NATO's specific decision-making structures must remain a consensus of all member states. However, the United Kingdom strongly supports the need to look again at the way in which NATO reaches its decisions and the alliance's bureaucratic supporting structure. That should follow any enlargement, should it occur at Prague.

What opportunities he has examined for a future role for the Defence Diversification Agency at Aberporth. [58682]

The Defence Diversification Agency has held a number of discussions about its role at Aberporth, where it currently provides a part-time technology diversification manager. The post is funded by the Welsh Development Agency, which recently invited us to make a proposal for expanding the service, as we shall now do.

I thank the Minister for his reply. He will know of the difficulties caused by the withdrawal of funding for MOD apprenticeships at Aberporth earlier this year, but he may not be aware of the threat to 450 jobs at Dewhurst in Cardigan. Does he therefore agree that the progression of the Aberporth scheme under the technology diversification manager is essential to realise its assets and that the appointment of a full-time manager would help enormously in that task? Will he work with QinetiQ, the private company, and his colleagues in the Wales Office to realise the aim of diversification and new technology jobs at Aberporth?

I pay tribute to the interest and application that the hon. Gentleman has devoted to the issue as the local Member. An approach by the Welsh Development Agency to the Defence Diversification Agency indicates that the organisation is held in high regard locally. Although the DDA has not been operational for long, the signs are that it will be remarkably successful in bringing technology into the MOD and spreading it out. We will take every possible step to ensure that the proposal proceeds.

What recent assessments he has received of the availability of UK ground forces for operations in the middle east. [58683]

We have long recognised that our national interests are directly affected by events right across the middle east. We therefore continue to place high priority on our ability to project and sustain power in the region. As part of its routine planning work, the Ministry of Defence keeps a range of military options under review. Exercise Saif Sareea 2 in Oman towards the end of last year, for example, clearly demonstrated our ability to deploy UK ground forces over long distances and to sustain them there.

May I direct the Secretary of State's attention to Iraq? Is he aware that US officials are now saying that the air strikes in the no-fly zone are no longer primarily aimed at humanitarian objectives, but are directed at opening up the capacity for more widespread bombing in Iraq? Bearing in mind the US President's policy of taking out Saddam Hussein, can the Secretary of State say whether UK forces are to be deployed in pursuit of that policy?

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise. The air strikes are self-defence against attacks on our aircraft and on coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone, so their primary purpose is to defend aircrew and their aircraft against those attacks. The humanitarian purpose of having planes patrolling the no-fly zone continues.

May I direct my right hon. Friend's mind to the situation in the middle east regarding Palestine and Israel? If British troops are to be used in some form of peacekeeping force in that situation, will he give an absolute assurance that they will go in only with a United Nations mandate and to uphold United Nations resolutions?

In order for there to be a peacekeeping force, there has to be peace. I assure my hon. Friend that the United Kingdom Government will continue their efforts to bring about a peaceful situation in that difficult part of the world, but until that situation arises, his question is somewhat premature

In the event of a deployment in the middle east, would British troops, like our American allies, enjoy the protection of theatre missile defence systems?

The hon. Gentleman deliberately keeps his question as vague as possible. He refers to a deployment in the middle east, which is a very large region. Of course, as no theatre missile defence system is readily available to any forces deployed anywhere in that region, I can only say that that would not yet be available to the United Kingdom.

If he will make a statement on equal opportunities in the armed forces. [58684]

A new diversity policy has recently been agreed for the armed forces. The policy seeks to build on existing equal opportunities policies and practices. The aim is to create an organisational culture that values individuals from diverse backgrounds, treats all personnel fairly and with respect, and recognises the importance of their contribution to operational capability.

Did my right hon. Friend see any black faces during the trooping of the colour ceremony? I am afraid that I did not, which made me anxious that it is possible that the elite regiments of the British Army are failing to recruit from all the communities that make up Great Britain. If that is the case, what action will he take to ensure that every Briton has an equal chance to be a soldier in every regiment of our armed forces?

Unlike my hon. Friend, I did not see the trooping of the colour, but perhaps I should explain why: I was in the Falkland Islands representing Her Majesty's Government at the liberation day commemorative parade in Port Stanley, where the armed forces were given the freedom of the islands. I will try to seek a specific answer to her question and find out whether people from the ethnic communities were in the parade but not shown on television, but I think that the implication of that question is a slur on all the efforts that have been made not only by the Government, but by all armed forces representatives who seek strenuously to encourage an increase in recruitment from the ethnic communities in this country. Indeed, the targets that we have set are very challenging, and although we have not met them, the progress is very encouraging indeed.

May I assure the Minister that there are black faces in all the regiments of the Foot Guards—or certainly most of them? I know because I have seen them. For the avoidance of doubt, will he reaffirm that the important thing about the armed forces is that they are good at defending this country, and not that somebody is ticking off the number of people with black faces or brown faces, or whatever other sort of people there might be?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman's underlying view. I think that we should view the armed forces in a holistic way, in terms of what they are asked to do and the way in which they deliver. We ask a lot of them and they deliver to a very high extent, irrespective of their ethnic background.

Whether the international security assistance force has helped with humanitarian aid missions in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. [58685]

The primary role of the international security assistance force—ISAF—is to help the Interim Administration to maintain security in Kabul and its surrounding areas, but national contingents within ISAF have also been involved in a number of humanitarian projects. United Kingdom service personnel, in conjunction with the Department for International Development, have contributed to the rebuilding of Kabul's education system through helping with repairs to its schools. ISAF has also on occasion responded to critical emergencies to help to save lives. There has been no expansion in ISAF's mission as defined in the authorising United Nations Security Council resolutions.

As my right hon. Friend knows, the security situation inside the country is worrying many people, especially as reports from Human Rights Watch and others say that troops attached to the warlords are running wild around the country, creating a climate of fear and instability. As peace is very tenuous in Afghanistan, many people believe that it is important that disarmament take place as soon as possible and that ISAF's capability be expanded. That was the view of the Government, and they argued in favour of it. Is it still possible that ISAF's role can be extended outside Kabul into the rest of the country so that the peace that exists there now, slight though it is, can be strengthened?

It is important to present a balanced picture of what is happening in Afghanistan. Although my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to tensions caused by the continuing existence of well-armed rival factions, it is equally important to put into the balance the fact that there is an extremely successful Loya Jirga process that has built on efforts right across the country—that is, regional meetings ultimately leading to the present meeting in Kabul. Informed observers tell me that that demonstrates the Afghan people's determination to rebuild their country and to take the opportunity that has been provided to them.

If he will make a statement on progress on the privatisation of QinetiQ. [58686]

Since the vesting of QinetiQ as a company on 1 July last year, work has concentrated on preparing the company for sale, options for which were through flotation or strategic partnership. Although flotation had always been our preferred route, following a comprehensive review of the available options for the transaction route and timing in conjunction with specialist advisers and QinetiQ's senior management, we decided that the strategic partner route offers the best potential for a transaction in 2002, offers value to the taxpayer and meets our objective of a successful public private partnership. I informed the House of that on 6 March.

May I seek an assurance from the Minister that in the run-up to privatisation the Government are not seeking to maximise the short-term value of the company's property portfolio? Specifically, will he assure me that he is putting QinetiQ under no pressure whatsoever to sell land at Throckmorton to the Home Office for use as an asylum accommodation centre? That would be likely to prejudice the site's long-term value as it develops into a science park, following the great success of the science park at Malvern.

On the hon. Gentleman's general point, I assure him that a strategic partner such as we envisage would work closely with QinetiQ and contribute significantly to growing the overall value of its business, from which the taxpayer would benefit through the Ministry of Defence's initial retention of a significant financial interest in the company. The MOD will also retain a special share as a means of protecting United Kingdom defence and security interests.

If he will make a statement on the circumstances surrounding the transfer of Brigadier Roger Lane to other duties. [58687]

The decision that Brigadier Jim Dutton should succeed Brigadier Roger Lane as commander 3 Commando Brigade in April 2002 was taken by the First Sea Lord in July 2001, as part of the normal appointing process for senior officers in the naval service. Ministers were not involved and would not expect to be because it was a routine changeover at one-star level.

If the succession to Brigadier Lane was conducted in the manner described, why does my right hon. Friend believe that the media made such a fuss?

That is clearly a matter for them, but I was surprised by the story that began the so-called controversy. It suggested that I faced mounting pressure to sack the Royal Marines commander in Afghanistan. That could not have been true because there was no such pressure. At least, if it existed, I was not aware of it.

Why did the Secretary of State tolerate a situation whereby officials in his Department were criticising a serving officer, who, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, has no opportunity to answer any criticism? Will he ensure that that never happens again while he is in charge?

Let me make it clear that no Minister in the Ministry of Defence tolerates any such briefings by officials in the Department. If the hon. Gentleman has any specific examples of such briefings, I assure him that I shall investigate them fully if he makes them known to me.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to correct the misapprehension given by the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart)—

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot extend Question Time by raising points of order.