---

Defence in the United Kingdom

My hon. Friend makes a good point, which is an indictment of the project. I learned from going out with the Marines recently that, on a weekend exercise, they need to take approximately 32 batteries to keep the radios going. Clearly, many questions need to be asked about the project, especially since it has taken 30 years to devise a replacement for the Clansman system. Of course, that was supposed to be solved by the smart acquisition system—a new process for dealing with procurement. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) commented earlier, perhaps from a sedentary position, rather than being faster, cheaper and better, it was ““slower, dearer and worser””—I believe that those were his words. It is time to take our military needs seriously and invest properly in the equipment. I should like to consider many other issues, which have already been raised, and with which the Government need to deal. They include closing RAF bases, the duplicity of the relationship between NATO and the EU, and the standard of NATO training as we go for the first time in Afghanistan from a peacekeeping to a war-fighting role. The hon. Member for Telford (David Wright) also mentioned the nuclear deterrent. Much more needs to be debated. We had the biggest shake-up in July 2004, when we needed more forces, yet the Government reduced our strength. The Government are keen to praise our armed forces but not fully to finance them. They are keen to commit them to battle but not properly to equip them. It is a good job that we focus our energies in most of our operations on hearts and minds. If we had to do it any other way, we would not have the equipment. Every soldier, sailor and airman has the right to ask whether money is being well spent by the Government. I do not believe that the Government’s words are matched by their actions. We are rightly proud of our armed forces, but we should be less proud of the Government’s record.