---

Defence Policy

I too shall try to be brief, because I know that so many others wish to contribute to this reasonably wide-ranging defence debate. In spite of the current economic difficulties, now is not the time to cut the military budget, especially when times are so uncertain and when the very stability of nations and the civilised western world is being called into question. With the recession and so much of the budget already committed for future military projects, even if we take into account yesterday's very welcome news of the £700 million protected mobility project, my biggest fear is that the Army will lose out. Yet the Army is the very service with the hard-won experience and expertise that the UK needs most, if we bear in mind the commitments that the Government have made in committing our forces to two war zones. I regret that I was unable to be present yesterday to listen to—or, even better, to contribute to—the debate in Westminster Hall on ““Government strategy and objectives in Afghanistan””. Having read Hansard this morning, I support the contribution made to that debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood), who has first-hand experience of the problems faced there. I have made the point before that I do not believe that we will succeed in Afghanistan while security, reconstruction and development fall under two commands. The whole project should be under one command, preferably that of the Army, for success to be achieved. If the objective is not achieved, the overstretched and under-resourced military will be placed in an impossible position, with, I regret to say, further loss of life. I have always given credit where credit is due to those responsible for transforming the equipment and fighting ability of the Army. As in the past, I commend those responsible for the introduction of the Talisman project, including the Buffalo mine-clearing vehicle. I first raised the issue in the House exactly three years ago, so it is gratifying to know that minds in the MOD have been changed in the meantime on the usefulness and life-saving potential of the Buffalo. However, I was intrigued to read a report today by the director of equipment capability, who said:"““The Talisman system is based around three vehicles””—" the Mastiff, which we know about, the Buffalo, which I have mentioned, and the high-mobility engineer excavator, which I understand is to be built by JCB. However, what has happened to the Caterpillar DV104 armoured heavy wheeled tractors, 25 of which were procured at a cost of £14 million, but which are now being sold for less than £4.5 million? I believe that six of them were delivered as recently as 2001, and that they remain unused. I would have thought that those vehicles could be of some use to the Government in Afghanistan, for mine clearing, road building—you name it. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Robert Key) mentioned that he would like to spend twice as much on defence—as, indeed, we all would—but we have to ask where the wastage is occurring, and whether that money would be better spent on the vehicles that our armed services now need. One of the areas in which the Ministry of Defence is most uncommitted at present is the category of medium-weight vehicles. I appreciate that they are part of the FRES package, which was mentioned by the Chairman of the Select Committee earlier, and I admit to having been critical in the past about the original concept. However, the Mastiff and Ridgeback design, which involves blast deflection rather than blast absorption, must be supplemented by more vehicles of that type. The Army needs a medium-weight vehicle that is ready to combat the difficulties that it could face from disorder in parts of the world as a result of the present worldwide financial and economic difficulties, and the terrorist threat that might follow in its wake. Another need crying out for urgent attention is the provision of helicopters. This has also been mentioned earlier in the debate. I appreciate that, with the recession and the need to reduce unemployment, it will be tempting for the Government to insist on a home-grown product. We should, however, never deny our forces the helicopter capability that they urgently need, and which can be purchased off the shelf, even second hand. There are helicopters available that already have a proven track record in theatre. The Royal Navy will have its two carriers, although whether there will be any aircraft to go on them is another matter. It will also have the Type 45 destroyers and the Astute submarines. The Royal Air Force has its Eurofighter and, in future, it will have the A400M airlift aircraft. But where is the ring-fenced finance for the key element of the future Army structure, which was based on the medium-weight vehicle? I mean no disrespect to the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, which are both excellent in the roles that they undertake, when I say that it is the Army that is at present bearing the brunt of operations in two theatres, one of which is particularly difficult. I trust, therefore, that the Minister and Her Majesty's Opposition will make an unequivocal commitment to see the future Army structure through, so that, at the very least, the Army has the ability to fulfil its present role, to respond whenever it is called upon to keep order and stability throughout the world, and to defend the best interests of the United Kingdom. In what we all recognise will be a tight military financial budget, the last thing that the nation would expect is for the Army proportionately to come near the bottom of the available funding league, while being expected to continue to carry the greatest burden. The British people know what sacrifices it has already made, and continues to make. They salute the courage and determination of our fighting forces, supported as they are by their families and friends, to whom we are also grateful.