---

Defence Policy

No, I will not. On resettlement, personnel seeking social housing must not be disadvantaged by their peripatetic careers, as they are currently. I believe that that point was made by the hon. Member for Midlothian. The hon. Member for Falkirk (Mr. Joyce) described at first hand his experience of married quarters. My experience was slightly different: we at least had indoor sanitation. My experience of health care at the point of wounding in theatre at roles 1 and 2 has been fairly positive. It is important for our troops to know that they will be well looked after, but we should not seek to cover up the concerns of highly experienced and respected professionals such as Lieutenant-Colonel Paul Parker of the Royal Army Medical Corps, a consultant orthopaedic surgeon who has presented us with a picture of military medicine in Afghanistan that is not rosy. His view is that medical evacuation, basic supplies in military hospitals and medical imaging in theatre are inadequate. I hope Ministers agree that the way in which they provide for our injured lies at the very heart of our military covenant. Over the weekend, the Army’s top brass were accused of failing to stand up for their people. Lieutenant-Colonel Parker has certainly stood up for those in his care, and as a doctor and as an officer he deserves great credit. His report cuts through the hierarchy that surrounds Ministers and demands their critical appraisal. I hope that Ministers have satisfied themselves that any shortcomings identified by him have now been remedied, and that in so doing they have not been content simply to accept any old flannel from the general staff. In the last month alone 145 injured soldiers have been repatriated for treatment, yet we learn that because our UK military hospitals have now closed, soldiers are being nursed not with their comrades but alongside civilians. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury mentioned that point. The Minister must say whether that is because they have complex medical needs that demand tertiary and higher specialist medical care—which is fine—or because the new medical managed arrangements supported in all parts of the House are inadequate. My chief concern, however, is not about care in theatre—or role 3 back home at Selly Oak or in the wider NHS. My chief concern is not about health care at all; instead, it is about care, by which I mean what happens when a person is done with Selly Oak and begins to face the future with a broken body or broken mind. The announcement by Ministers of more cash for combat stress was welcome, but the fact that it was such a sudden and substantial injection more than four years after the start of Operation Telic calls into question the foresight of an MOD that has meanwhile been happy to preside over the serious erosion of uniformed military psychiatry. The right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) talked in his discussion of finance about Labour being on the brink of fantasy—to borrow his words—in the 1980s. He also looked forward to aircraft carriers and FRES—the future rapid effect system—as did the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick). I shall say more about that if I have time. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) discussed defence equipment in her inimitable, robust and highly thoughtful fashion. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Stewart Hosie) also touched briefly on defence procurement. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) talked about Afghanistan and its flourishing poppy crop, as did the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Sarah McCarthy-Fry)—if I may say so without embarrassing her, in what was a most thoughtful contribution. Despite the debt it owes to our reserve forces, it appears that the Labour party continues to conflate the Territorial Army with the Home Guard. If anyone doubts that, they should take a look at the Home Secretary’s unworthy line at the expense of the TA while playing to the gallery in Bournemouth last month. I have written to the right hon. Lady and invited her to come to the House and explain herself and apologise. I regret to have to say that, to date, she has been silent on that. Words mean what words say, and we as politicians should understand that full well. At a time when this Government’s foreign policy is so heavily reliant on the TA, it behoves Ministers to choose their words carefully. The Defence Analytical Services Agency tells us that our volunteer reserves stand at 36,000, down from 46,000 in April 2000, yet in Iraq and Afghanistan they have been employed as never before. Given their battle-proven capabilities, it seems to me that the only reason for cutting the TA is a failure to demonstrate cost-effectiveness. Therefore, during the summer I asked how much the TA costs. We learned on Tuesday how difficult it is to pin Ministers down on defence costs, but in this instance it appears that they simply do not have a clue. The Minister stated to me in a letter dated 1 September:"““I can understand how you might feel surprised at our inability to provide information on the total cost of the Territorial Army.””" He is utterly right that I am surprised, because he is saying that his axemen have been hacking away at the TA without having any idea about savings that might be achieved, or whether consequential costs would need to be borne elsewhere. How can we possibly secure maximum advantage for the cash available if we have no handle on relative costings? Given that the Minister of State has no idea about the cost drivers within his own Department, it is hardly surprising that he cannot give timelines for procurement—as was painfully obviously apparent in his contribution last Tuesday. Without timelines, all the commitments made last week and in the July statement are no more than aspirations. That, along with the failure of defence spending—at 1.5 per cent.—to keep pace with defence-related inflation and no commensurate fall in operational tempo, means that, as the Royal United Service Institute pointed out last week, an overly optimistic comprehensive spending review is likely to be followed by defence strategic guidance for the next 10 years that will disappoint those of us eagerly anticipating carriers, FRES and attack aircraft. That is all the more reason for a proper strategic defence review. I am pleased to note that the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) appears to agree with us on that—much as it pains me to have much in common with the Liberal Democrats. It seems to me that not only are the Government looking to my party to set the agenda, but the Liberal Democrats are at it as well.