---

Counter-Insurgency (Iraq/Afghanistan)

Yes, the Navy is outside Afghanistan, but I believe that it is worth mentioning en passant. One must ask why we need the two aircraft carriers, including the accompanying aircraft, which will soak up so much of the budget. The only conclusion that I can arrive at is that they will pack a considerable punch and can act as a deterrent to prevent conflicts from breaking out and escalating into major warfare. However, the price seems to be very high in the reduction in the number of frigates and destroyers, and thereby in the UK's ability to have a Navy presence around the world to guard our shipping routes. Should we not also be looking at the other end of the spectrum and procuring more inshore patrol craft? I propose to finish by discussing two important subjects: finance and the benefit to the nation of a sound defence policy. Whichever party wins the next general election, some very large financial commitments have been made by this Government that will come into effect during the period from 2010 to 2015. If the military believe that they will get more money out of a Conservative Government, I think that they are deluding themselves. That extra money is not likely to be forthcoming, bearing it in mind that the country will probably be broke by then. I hasten to add that I speak, of course, as a Back Bencher and there may be those who disagree. However, I have always believed that it is best to face up to the worst-case scenario in order to plan for the future. The mantra that our armed forces are underfunded is often repeated—indeed, there is some truth in it—but how the money for our forces is spent also needs to be challenged and I believe that it is a pertinent issue. I have pointed out in previous debates that the wastage in the defence budget has been enormous, mainly due to unclear or ulterior motives and objectives.