---

Counter-Insurgency (Iraq/Afghanistan)

And the gun was nearly rejected. In the end, it had been dismantled and put it together so many times it seemed the Government were trying to find fault with it. Because it had been used in operation we knew that it was the weapon required, yet every obstacle possible was put in the way of early deployment. Why? We do not know why. I draw hon. Members attention to an old issue that we face time and again. In last night's Evening Standard, there was a picture of five members of the Parachute Regiment on deployment in Helmand. It was interesting to look at their feet because not two of them have the same pair of boots and three of them have different webbing packs. Equipment is important. The hon. Member for Newark is correct: servicemen have seen a dramatic improvement in the provision of equipment. However, some issues still cause them concern and safety in vehicles is a classic problem. We have had the argument time and again about boots that do not work in the desert and I do not want to go over that. However, our service personnel still buy their own equipment because what they are issued with is not suitable for the conditions that they are in. I would like to draw the attention of hon. Members to some of the things mentioned in today's debate pack. An issue that has not been mentioned is that of vehicles enabling the treatment of injury and the cases of victims who need to be transported and worked on by medics. Space is confined and facilities for proper medical vehicles are lacking. There is much to be said on the matter. I realise that time is short and that hon. Members want to hear the Minister respond, so on behalf of my colleagues and as a result of my experience on the Defence Committee, I would like to say that there are improvements on the way that will have a great effect—for example, the Mastiff and other changes that have occurred in vehicles. However, I share the view that the flexibility of the command to have a series of vehicles and choices is vital. I also share the view of those hon. Members who have said that it is no good settling for just one correct option—one has only to see the consequences of not having such an approach to realise that. I also agree with the hon. Member for Congleton: we have to deal with our colleagues who have failed to share the burden—not in the European Union, but in NATO. This is a NATO issue; not an EU issue. If it cannot share the fighting and dying, I hope that at some stage it can at least share the equipment. The fact we had to buy helicopters from the Danes is once again a clear example of co-operation just not existing.