---

Defence in the UK

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. It is right to ask questions about this issue. We believe that the House was premature in seeking to make a decision two years ago. A final decision does not have to be made, and in truth will not be made, until main gate, which is the point at which the Thatcher Government made the political decision about Trident. The significant costs of Trident replacement will begin to rack up only midway through the next decade. I do not suggest that the questions need to be answered today, any more than they had to be two years ago, but it is right that the questions are being asked. They will continue to be asked from now right through to the time at which any decision is made. It is especially apt that the questions arise at the moment, as we progress towards the 2010 non-proliferation treaty conference talks. I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who expressed his sincerely held view, which can be fairly characterised as being that there were no circumstances in which he thought it would ever be possible for the UK to give up its nuclear deterrent. That is a point of view, and he is entitled to hold it, but if he, as a Minister, were to articulate that position on behalf of the UK, it would undoubtedly put us in breach of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. We have binding and solemn commitments under that treaty that it is our duty to try to fulfil at all times. Personnel must be our priority. Withdrawing from Iraq will alleviate some of the burden, but Afghanistan will continue to take its toll. The mental health casualties will start to become more apparent in the coming years, and we surely all agree that more needs to be done to tackle this issue head on. However, I welcome the progress that has been made recently. We still have a huge problem of alcohol and substance abuse among former personnel, and a high proportion of prisoners—one in 11, or some 8,000—are ex-services. Preparing our service personnel for life after the armed forces, whether that be rehabilitation, medical care and support or further skills and education, still needs to become more central to our thinking. For service personnel and their families we must do more to honour our commitments. In particular, a recent National Audit Office report revealed that housing was still in a sorry state. As I have said before in these debates, at the current rate of progress, it will take 20 years to bring all the housing up to scratch. That was widely pooh-poohed at the time, but I was intrigued to note that the NAO report arrived at the same figure.