---

Defence in the UK

Here is a litmus test for the Minister: when he sees that my hon. Friends the Members for Woodspring and for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth)—and, I venture to say, myself—have been quietly shifted away from the defence portfolio to other responsibilities, he may have some grounds for suggesting that there is something in what he has said. One never knows, as all such matters are in the lap of the gods—or, in this case, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), the leader of my party, whom we all greatly admire and respect. I particularly admire and respect my right hon. Friend because I remember his excellent response to Tony Blair at the end of 2006, when the statement about the Government's intention to go on with a new generation of the nuclear deterrent was made. I was somewhat involved in the drafting of that reply and my right hon. Friend made only two alterations, both of which made it even tougher than it had been in the original draft. I therefore have no doubts whatsoever on that matter. I turn now to the contribution from the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey). I think that I dealt at the time with his bizarre claim that his party had been vindicated by the fact that a timetable had been set for withdrawal from Iraq, now that the insurgency has been brought so massively under control. The Liberal Democrats were advocating a timetable for withdrawal while the outcome of the conflict was still in doubt. I have argued before that counter-insurgency involves four elements: identification of the enemy, isolation of the enemy, neutralisation of the enemy and negotiation with realistic parts of the enemy to deal with the irreconcilables so that peace can then prevail. That is precisely what has happened in this case. The hon. Gentleman's remarks about the protesters were well made and his commitment to a strategic defence review is good. It is a pity that it came so long after my party's calls for one, not only now but every four years. One of the interventions made during his speech seemed to suggest that we needed a strategic defence review because the last one had been tailored to the cold war. That is the opposite of the truth: the last strategic defence review, which we all, on both sides of the House, said at the time was a pretty good piece of work, was precisely tailored to the post-cold war world.