---

Defence Procurement

No, I shall not give way at this stage. We may no longer be quite so concerned with the Spratleys in the South China sea, and perhaps we should turn our attention more to the north-west passage and the implications for trade routes between China, Japan and Europe via the north of Canada resulting from climate change, and the international tensions that are building over that situation. However, we are talking about things that touch the lives of every citizen every day, but they do not realise it. There are 16 or 17 Members of Parliament present for this debate, because the Whips have decided that there is not much legislative business and, as usual, have popped in a defence debate. I am very grateful to them for allowing us to have such a debate—it does not happen very often—but the House should be packed on such an occasion and it is not. Whether we are talking about importing fair trade bananas from the Windward islands, fridges from China, television sets from Taiwan or cars from Japan, we are talking about the need for a global reach to defend our trade, our standing of living, our quality of life, our influence in the world and the British national interest. That is what is at stake, which is why we still need to procure such very expensive systems. It is why we shall continue for a long time—indeed, for ever—to need an Army, a Navy and an Air Force. There is much loose talk around to the effect that we will not need an Air Force when we have unmanned aerial vehicles. We will. We shall need expertise to operate those platforms whether they are manned or not, and we shall need the Navy because we must have global reach to protect our British interests and our alliances around the world. We will need an Army, of course, to help in the defence of the homeland, but also to ensure that we can project our standards of life, our morality and our ethical stance in the world, and so that we can look after humanitarian aid and carry out peace enforcement and peacekeeping as well as high-intensity warfare when the need arises. If we can explain that to the taxpayer—indeed, if we could explain it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the shadow Chancellor and the 620 Members of Parliament who are not here—the defence budget might rise up the political agenda, and more people might share my view that, over a 10-year period, we should in the national interest double the defence budget. The usual suspects from all parities are debating, with great expertise, the need to hold the Government to account on the issue of particular procurement programmes, but that misses the main point: in a democracy such as ours—an international country—that is at the cutting edge of military capability, we still need to persuade the taxpayer that procurement matters. For people to go to Tesco, the Navy, Army and the Air Force must ensure that all the products can get there and be safe once they do so. It is as simple as that. However, we do not make that effort. The Defence Committee has spent six months going to all the major NATO countries—it is off to Georgia and Turkey next week—and they all say that the public are not prepared to pay. The American public are prepared. The British public pay for more than anyone else in Europe, but other nations apparently do not think that that is important. It is important, and we need to convince the taxpayer of that, not by obscure arguments about whether one version of FRES is better than another or about who will win the contract for the next big order, but in relation to where the national, personal and family interests lie in having the best equipment and the best conditions for armed services personnel. If we can argue the case in such a way, the British taxpayer will realise its relevance, and then the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the shadow Chancellor might agree that we should double the defence budget over a 10-year period.