---

Defence in the World

It is quite a long time since the Secretary of State generously thanked me for offering to withdraw today’s business if necessary in the light of this morning’s circumstances. Like him, I am pleased that we have been able to hold this debate, as it is important that democracy shows that it is resilient against terrorism and that the terrorists are never allowed to achieve their evil purpose. It is therefore important that we debate this issue today. I apologise to the House because, for personal reasons, I cannot be here for the winding-up speeches. Our debate takes place in difficult and, indeed, dark circumstances. This morning’s incidents obviously have ramifications for our security and our defence. I am sure that there will be a time when questions need to be asked and perhaps lessons will need to be learned, but that time is not now. This is a time when our thoughts and prayers must be with the bereaved and the injured, and our gratitude, admiration and total support must be with our dedicated emergency services in the difficult work that they are carrying out on our behalf today. I pay tribute to them. Like the Secretary of State, I pay tribute this week in particular to our veterans. It has been a real honour to be with them on a number of occasions and to be able to thank them for what they did for us. It is important that we never forget that and the sacrifices that so many of them made. I pay a heartfelt tribute to our armed forces. We ask an enormous amount of them in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Balkans, the Falkland Islands, Cyprus, Northern Ireland and other places. I have seen them at work in those locations in my previous role as shadow Foreign Secretary and I can say only that their professionalism and courage are second to none—we owe them a great debt of gratitude, too. However, those widespread postings underline the changing nature of today’s security threat compared with the more predictable threat of the cold war. The consequent demands on our armed forces have been far greater than expected, and they will continue to be so. As the Secretary of State pointed out, we will continue to have a world role. I agree with much of what the right hon. Gentleman said about our responsibilities in the world, but if we are to ask our armed forces to undertake those responsibilities on our behalf, we owe it to them more than ever to ensure that they are properly funded, properly trained and properly equipped. The recent National Audit Office report summed up the position, stating:"““the operations on which the United Kingdom’s Armed Forces are committed have consistently exceeded this planned level of activity in the past three years. The Department considers that it is likely to continue to do so for the foreseeable future.””" Conservative Members have in recent years repeatedly emphasised that fact, which has important consequences for our armed forces’ structure, their training, their equipment and their overall readiness. The Secretary of State provided a more philosophical dissertation today, but it is important that we examine the NAO report with some care. In my view it made grim reading, exposing serious or critical weaknesses in the ability of large sections of the armed forces to meet their readiness targets. It finds that 36 per cent. of forces had serious weaknesses in their readiness levels and describes 2 per cent. as critical—although I understand that that problem has now been addressed. The capabilities of the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force are being degraded as money is diverted to the Army for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. In just one year the Royal Navy has seen a sixfold increase in cannibalising, whereby spare parts are plundered from one ship to keep another at sea, and for five of the past six years the armed forces have been operating at levels far above those thought to be sustainable. On the Army, the report specifically finds that"““the Land contribution to any Joint Rapid Reaction Force will remain limited beyond the end of 2006.””" It states:"““there continue to be shortages of essential personnel, including general and specialist medical staff””—" and that"““the cannibalisation of equipment will deplete the remaining pool of equipment that is available for other operations or to replace equipment damaged on operations.””" That raises serious questions, which I hope the Minister of State will answer when he winds up the debate. For a start, what land contribution are we currently able to make and what units are potentially available? How many units, whether on operations or not, can be properly equipped following a process of what the report calls cannibalisation? The report paints a devastating picture of the extent to which the Royal Navy has been deliberately degraded. It states:"““the Department has deliberately decided that it should take risk against the peacetime readiness levels of some maritime forces, reducing resource allocations for the first two years””" of the planning period. Those changes have introduced further risks to the Royal Navy’s capability. The report notes:"““The readiness of the fleet began to decline in 2002 . . . and is forecast to keep falling during the Reduced Support Period, recovering, in a best case, from 2006–07 and in a worst case only after 2010.””" How on earth does that meet the short-term availability needed for the taskforce requirements of the Government’s expeditionary strategy and the long-term versatility of the fleet that is supposed to be at the heart of current defence doctrine?