---

Defence in the UK

Indeed it is. Mental health services are the Cinderella service in the NHS, and as a society we must re-evaluate whether the way in which we treat those with mental health problems represents the social values that we would like to see in the world's fifth richest country in the 21st century. I met representatives of Combat Stress yesterday. Such charities do a wonderful job, but we will have to do a lot more if we are properly to fulfil our obligations to those who, as my hon. Friend says, suffer as a consequence of fighting for our security. They way in which we deal with the welfare of our armed forces is integral to dealing not only with the issues that we have mentioned but with our recruitment and retention problems. One thing that we need to consider is how we treat our armed forces compared with other public servants. I shall give one tiny example of mismatch that I was unaware of until my most recent visit to Iraq. As many Members will know, our troops returning from Afghanistan get a maximum of 48 hours' decompression, at the discretion of their commanding officer. It often occurs in unattractive surroundings in Cyprus, and we have all heard many tales of lengthy periods spent sleeping on airport floors—not much respite for those who have faced bombings and shootings in our name. By contrast, the House might be interested to know that Foreign Office officials in Afghanistan get two weeks' compulsory decompression for every six to seven weeks in theatre. Even better, Department for International Development officials are entitled to the same two-week break away from post for every six weeks in theatre, but they can take a break anywhere in the world on condition that the cost is equal to or less than that of a flight back to the UK. That is not to say that we are treating our officials over-generously, but those in the armed forces will compare their treatment to that of people in other parts of the public service. That will have an impact on recruitment and retention. I end by giving the House a snapshot of what a decade of Labour's neglect has done to our armed forces. In procurement, the top 19 major procurement projects have gone over budget by a total of £2.95 billion. The Nimrod MRA4 project, which is delayed by 92 months, is £789 million over budget, and the order size has been reduced from 21 to 12. The Astute class submarine, which is delayed by 47 months, is £1.228 billion over budget. The Type 45 destroyer is delayed by 42 months and is £989 million over budget. Despite an almost unprecedented use of our armed forces in conflict since Labour came into office, Army numbers are down by nearly 2,500, the Royal Navy by nearly 7,000, the RAF by over 14,000 and the Territorial Army by 22,000. Our attack submarines are down by four, our frigates and destroyers by 12, our aircraft carriers by one, fixed-wing aircraft by 168, infantry battalions by four, and armoured fighting vehicles by 479. According to the Government's own figures, 31 out of 36 infantry battalions are under-strength, the shortage being equivalent to four battalions-worth of soldiers. Twelve out of 14 TA infantry battalions are under-strength. The Government abolished the Defence Export Services Organisation, to the delight of those who oppose the arms trade. In 2004, when we were already involved in two wars, the Government cut the helicopter budget in 2004 by £1.4 billion, and we are still suffering from the consequences. Despite the two wars, this year's defence spending, at 2.2 per cent. of GDP, is the lowest since the 1930s. To cap it all, the Government have not conducted a strategic defence review for this country in 12 years. It is a desperately sorry record, which will take a very different Government a long time to put right.