---

Defence Policy

My hon. Friend asks where the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) is. He waxes lyrical in his constituency about this matter, but he never turns up to take part in these debates, which is a great shame. I visited Yeovil; perhaps he would like to visit the House and participate in these debates. Let me deal with personnel. We all rightly pay tribute to the calibre of our armed forces, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex said in a passionate speech, which I salute, a huge burden falls on members of the armed forces and their families. That is why national focus has shifted to the military covenant. It is important to remember that the covenant is not between the armed forces and the Government, but between the armed forces and the people. We are the representatives of the people, and it is our duty to ensure that the people fulfil their part of the covenant. We do it by pressing the Government to ensure that they deliver on behalf of us all, as the people, with whom the covenant is made. The Defence Committee, so ably chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), drew attention to the relentless impact of operational tempo on the armed forces, especially the Army and Royal Air Force. Ten per cent. of Army personnel exceed the target of 415 days' separated service in any 30-month period. To put that in context, it means pretty much being away from the family for half the time in a year and a half—nine months. It is a huge commitment, which we need to appreciate. At the same time, 10 per cent. of RAF personnel exceed the 140 days in any 12-month period on detached duty. That is four times the target rate. As at 1 September, the Army was 3,300 below strength—nearly 4,000 if account is taken of Gurkhas over the trained requirement of 3,000. The RAF is 1,260 short and the Royal Navy 1,360 short. The hon. Member for Thurrock and the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), who is proudly wearing his 16 Air Assault tie—as Aldershot was formerly the home of the Parachute Regiment, he and I share an affection for it—pointed out that an over-reliance on Commonwealth recruits has developed. In 1998, there were only 360—210 of whom came from Canada, South Africa, New Zealand and Australia. However, last year, there were no fewer than 7,240—more than 2,000 Fijians and another 1,850 from the Caribbean. The Minister should listen carefully to the points that Members of different parties have made about the extent of the over-reliance. My hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Robert Key) pointed to the wave of liabilities that arises from the extensive injuries that our armed forces have sustained on operations. We are not only considering physical injuries—my hon. Friend referred to the work of Combat Stress. I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury for Help for Heroes—I am proudly wearing its bangle, as does almost every Army officer I meet. Those charities do a fantastic job, as do the Army Benevolent Fund, the Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund and others. It is not all Help for Heroes, great though that charity is. They all do fantastic work. Combat Stress has 8,000 people on its books, with 1,160 new referrals so far this year—a 16 per cent. increase on last year. That is a serious matter, and the nation must step up to the plate to meet those people's requirements in future. We, as parliamentarians, cannot allow the issue to be ducked. I hope that the Minister has heard the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury. Corporal Burbidge and his friends should be found a role in the military. I am sure that it is possible to do that. I conclude by referring to the Ministry of Defence's annual report and accounts for 2007-08. They reveal:"““For every one of the last 7 years the AF have operated above the level that they are resourced and structured to deliver. Achieving this has only been possible at the expense of the readiness of the AF to undertake contingent operations, and with an unavoidable impact on service personnel… The force structure cannot sustain indefinitely the nature, scale and intensity of operations being conducted in Afghanistan and Iraq over the past two years.””" The Secretary of State says that his military advisers assure him that that can be managed. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex said, the indictment by the Ministry of Defence of its own conduct seriously undermines its claim to have a coherent policy. If we add into the equation all the potential threats that could be out there, which I enumerated earlier, we can see that our capacity to meet the unexpected is almost non-existent. Our capacity to meet a major threat is non-existent, because we do not have the force structures to deal with one; we have been limited to the force structure that we now have for expeditionary operations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury said, our duty to the nation is to point out the potential risks to our freedom and security. The people must then decide what role they want the UK to play in the world. We cannot continue to say, ““This is what needs to be done, but here is a budget that we know is inadequate for the job.”” That is why we shall have a defence review immediately after the next general election. I make no secret of the fact that I would relish the challenge posed to the current ministerial team by my right hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for North-East Hampshire to inspire the nation to understand the importance of defence in the maintenance of the freedom and prosperity of these islands.