---

Defence in the UK

May I add my condolences and those of my colleagues to those expressed by the Minister? Our thoughts and prayers are with the families, not only of those killed in action but of those who have been injured, in their ongoing suffering. The House should remember the sacrifices that they, too, have made. It has been a privilege for me, like the Minister, to visit our armed forces in different parts of the UK, in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and to share the pride in and enthusiasm for what they do in our name. It is because of the esteem in which we hold our armed forces that so many of us were outraged by the events mentioned by the Minister involving those who chose to protest against the bravery and professionalism of our troops returning home from operations. I am sure that the whole House agrees that those returning from overseas deserve the full support of the British public, and nothing less. I think that decent-minded people were appalled and disgusted by the actions of unrepresentative extremists at the welcome home parade in Luton. It is, after all, thanks to the bravery and commitment of the men and women in our armed forces over many years that we have the freedom of speech that those nasty individuals were abusing, and they should be reminded of that fact. The best way for us, as a society, to show our contempt for those people and our support for our troops is not to ban protests, as some have suggested, but to outnumber the protesters and drown them out. What could be a better response to what we saw in Luton than to see huge supportive crowds cheering home our returning forces? Our deeds, not our words, will show what we really stand for. That fact was demonstrated a few days after the Luton parade, in Watford, where a parade by the Royal Anglian Regiment drew out thousands of people cheering as the troops marched through the town centre. The crowed was supportive, appreciative and, in some ways, defiant—a complete contrast to those ungrateful, unrepresentative extremists in Luton. Too often we allow minority voices to hijack the debate. The British public, the Government and Parliament must do all we can to encourage public support for the armed forces. As we debate the subject of defence in the United Kingdom, we would be negligent if we overlooked two major elements underpinning our nation's defence and, indeed, our role in the world: our nuclear deterrent and our ability to project power with aircraft carriers. I shall discuss the carriers first. An argument is made in some quarters that the carriers are useless because they will be of no help in the sort of conflict we face in Afghanistan. As things stand in the deserts of Helmand province, that is true, but it is beside the point. Nobody has ever tried to make an argument for the carriers on the basis that we needed them for current operations in Afghanistan, but I remind sceptics that there was a time, in the early days of the conflict in Afghanistan, when aircraft carriers were vital. For example, HMS Illustrious, with its 16 Harriers, which took part in the initial attack in October 2001, when there was no regional airbase that could quickly and easily be used. The argument against the carriers is also based on the false assumption that state-on-state conflict is a thing of the past. Unfortunately, history shows differently. Possessing the aircraft carriers in the 21st century will allow us to project power, influence and force in a way that would not otherwise be possible. In an era of globalisation, Britain's economic, trade and security interests are not only to be found here at home, in Gibraltar or in the Falklands, but around the globe, from the strait of Hormuz to the Malacca strait and most everywhere in between. In this complex world, British interests and the defence of the UK have no geographical boundaries, in the way that perhaps they did in the past. Because of that, we must have the ability to project power, influence and, if necessary, military force around the world. It is unfortunate that the Government have presided over delay after delay in the two carriers. They have now been in planning and design for twice the duration of the second world war. In December, right before the Christmas recess, we learned from a written statement that we can expect a further delay of up to two years. That was initially blamed on the joint strike fighter's entry into service, but we have since learned that that was not the main reason at all. I welcome the carriers as an important addition to the fleet and call on the Government to do everything they can to ensure their timely entry into service. However, we might ask why, when the Government are talking about bringing forward spending projects as part of the fiscal stimulus, major defence projects are being put back. But the current delay is only the tip of the iceberg in this Government's treatment of the Royal Navy. The journey that has led us to where our Navy is today has been one of serial betrayal by the Government. Time and again since the 1998 strategic defence review, our Navy has been blackmailed into accepting cuts to its fleet to ensure the eventual addition of the two new carriers that are so desperately needed. Back then, our Navy agreed to cut its fleet of 12 attack submarines to 10 and its fleet of 35 destroyers and frigates to 32, in return for the promise of the two carriers. A decade later, we find our Navy with only eight attack submarines, with a probable future reduction to six or seven, and an astonishingly low number—22—of destroyers and frigates. Maritime commitments have not decreased since 1998—in fact, they have risen at a time when our Navy has been slashed, mothballed or, in some cases, sold off. Having an aircraft carrier capability allows us better to protect our global interests, but it cannot be used as an excuse for any further cuts to the capabilities of our Navy.