---

Defence in the UK

I associate myself with the remarks made by the Government and Opposition Front Benchers at the outset about those who have given their lives in the service of this country and those who have been injured, many of them very seriously. In the same breath, I should like to mention the work of the services charities such as the Royal British Legion, the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association, or SSAFA, and others. I was tipped the wink the other day and looked at the ““Help for Heroes”” website. I hope that the House will forgive me this indulgence, but I should say that I was delighted to see on it a lovely photograph of our only granddaughter, Catherine, aged 10, at a fundraising event. It is good that the young and others are not only aware of the work of such organisations, but actually take part in such events. It has been accepted by successive Governments and generations of British people that defence policy is not limited merely to the physical defence of the shores of the United Kingdom, but extends to the source of anything that might threaten the long-term peace and security of these islands or of our allies. Our armed forces have long operated around the world and are still called on to do so to bring calm and stability to areas that could threaten our nation directly or indirectly. Although we should not take our eyes off the potential for future conventional warfare and the threat that that would undoubtedly bring, it is highly likely that we will continue to be engaged in counter-insurgency operations in the foreseeable future. I should like to pay warm tribute to the outgoing Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Des Browne), who during his watch oversaw the greatest transformation that the UK has seen for a long time as far as equipment, health care, accommodation and the general well-being of our armed forces—particularly the Army—are concerned. He should also be given credit for changing the basis on which our military vehicles were designed and procured, initially against much opposition from within and without the Ministry of Defence; he had the courage to go for the Mastiff and, more recently, the Ridgeback vehicles. The final act was to sign off a £500 million order for protected vehicles, for which all those who serve in the military and their families and friends will be grateful; lives will undoubtedly be saved as a result. I welcome the two new Ministers and the new Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), to the Front Bench. I very much hope that we will hear him contribute to the next defence debate. I hope also that he can achieve in the field of aircraft provision what his predecessor did for vehicles. Having campaigned for the use of light aircraft for ground attack and surveillance, I recognise that Watchkeeper will be a tremendous addition to unmanned aerial vehicles when it comes into service in 2010. There should have been no shortage of helicopters for our troops. Off-the-shelf medium helicopters could have been readily purchased but, as always, the crunch point is crew availability, because it comes down to hours per machine usage. If two or three crews are available, our aircraft can operate round the clock if necessary, whereas flying hours are severely limited when only one crew is available. That point was made forcefully by my hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) and for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), who also made an excellent point about volunteer reservists. It will not have escaped the notice of the House that the United States uses a tremendous number of pilot reservists in Afghanistan, and I cannot understand why we cannot train more in this country and think out of the box in order to help to provide the cover that is so desperately needed there. Afghanistan has been a tremendous proving ground for equipment—it finds every weakness—but hard-won experience there has resulted in very different, but impressively more effective armed forces. It has, thankfully, changed the concept of the future rapid effect system in the nick of time, but I trust that the Secretary of State will not allow slippage back to the mistaken concept of blast absorption for mine and improvised explosive device protection to the now established and proven concept of blast deflection. What has been proved to be highly successful in Iraq and in Afghanistan is the training of their respective national armies. The British Army mentoring teams have a tremendous track record of leadership on the ground, giving direction and training locals in the use of mutually compatible equipment. However, these newly established armies lack airpower. That emphasises the need to use less sophisticated aircraft in order that air power can be established in a similar way to the progress that has been established on the ground. Unless this simple ““ownership”” of defence expertise is acquired by these fledgling forces, the UK military will find itself overseas for ever, giving constant back-up and acting in a supporting role. In Afghanistan, one of the greatest fears is that reconstruction work may fail in its aims and that, after their military success, UK forces may be dragged into a long, impossible, deteriorating holding situation. There is the problem of a weak central Government holding back provincial government advancement and success, with far too many UK and European Union organisations initiating, and supposedly supervising, aid. The idea put forward earlier that the armed services might play an enhanced role in reconstruction should appropriate funds be diverted to them has considerable merit. After all, the Kajaki dam project could never have been achieved without the military and, although schools and health care are vitally important, infrastructure is essential for the creation of wealth in order to support welfare projects. Otherwise, Afghanistan, like other difficult areas of the world, will become dependent on aid. That would in turn create a breeding ground for corruption and insurgency. We run the danger of going back full circle to where we started, and by allowing instability to develop further in hot spots, we fail the interests and defence of the United Kingdom and its people.