---

Defence in the UK

They are perfectly entitled to their opinion. I happen to think that it is wrong. The nature of the threats that we face has changed quickly from the relative symmetry of the cold war to a range of other asymmetric and complex threats, and it could very well change again. Ultimately, the onus of explanation is not on those of us who wish to retain a deterrent, but on those who want to scrap it. They must tell us why they believe that they can predict the risks that we will face in half a century's time. The Government's White Paper, published in 2006, described the independent British nuclear deterrent as""an essential part of our insurance against the uncertainties and risks of the future"." I fully endorse that sentiment. It is an interesting element of the political debate that many of the opponents of the carrier programme and our nuclear deterrent are the same individuals who at other times claim that Britain is already too dependent on, and too close to, American foreign and defence policy. In fact, not having the aircraft carriers or a nuclear deterrent would make us even more dependent on the United States for our security. While British and American interests are likely to coincide in the future, and the Anglo-American relationship remains our most important strategic alliance, the UK must ultimately be able to guarantee its own security. It has been widely reported in the media and written answers that Russia has once again taken up its cold war habit of probing UK airspace. I understand, as we all do, that for operational security reasons the Government are unable to comment in detail on the Floor of the House on what actions have been taken to deal with Russia's actions, but I hope that in his winding-up speech this evening, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), will be able to give us an idea of the number and frequency of incursions and offer the House assurances that procedures are fully in place to deal with them. In addition, will the Minister say whether his Department has seen an increase in Russian submarine incursions into British territorial waters? We hear often about Russian planes challenging the integrity of our airspace, but seldom, if ever, about what is going on below the surface. There is good reason to be believe that such incursions are occurring, and as we are an island nation with only three naval bases, it is an important matter. I hope that he will address it. Those who think that state-on-state warfare is a thing of the past need only look at the recent invasion of Georgia by Russia and the build-up of Russian armed forces to have a sense of foreboding. One thing is certain: the global economic downturn has not deterred Russia from driving ahead with vast military reforms, requiring huge sums of money. On the contrary, it looks like it is spending at an ever-increasing rate. Russia may be building up from a low base, given the degraded state of its conventional forces, and it may not pose a direct threat to the security of this country, but the Russian leadership has shown in Georgia how it could destabilise our allies and threaten our security indirectly through a stranglehold on energy supplies. The cyber-attacks in Estonia, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan, for which the finger points at Russia, mean that we must maintain our vigilance and invest in the technology to deal with threats that could in future occur in this country. Our armed forces have seen a lot of combat in recent years, in the Gulf war, the Balkans, Sierra Leone, Iraq and Afghanistan. Improvements in body armour and vehicles have meant that many injuries that were once fatal are now survivable. We will see many disabled young veterans, and our society will have to adjust to that. However, that is only the visible damage: what is invisible must concern us as well. I would like the topic of mental health in the armed forces to be much higher up this country's political agenda. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for North Durham, told GMTV earlier this week that a study had shown that""the actual number of people presenting with mental health problems is less than 2 per cent."," yet even if that is correct, it represents just under 4,000 people. That is a lot of individuals requiring a lot of care. The hon. Gentleman went on to claim that the study showed that those who had not been deployed on operations suffered more than those who had. There was something unclear about that, as it is true only of those suffering from mood disorders and depressive episodes. In fact, the report clearly states that the rate of post-traumatic stress disorder was higher among those deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan than among those not deployed there.