Proceeding contribution from Bob Ainsworth (Labour) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 15 October 2009. It occurred during Debate on Defence Policy.
Defence Policy
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The basic problem is that we have supplied vehicles, such as Mastiff, which provide a huge protection against mines, but they cannot be used in many circumstances and our troops have to use smaller vehicles. We have upgraded Snatch to Snatch Vixen, which has a far higher level of armour, but it still can be overpowered. Any vehicle can be overpowered, including a Challenger tank, if people want to put enough explosive into a device. But, we are looking at improving the range all the time. Snatch Vixen is not as good as we can get, and we are now looking at new vehicles that could fulfil the role that we have asked of Snatch Vixen, so that we have smaller and highly capable vehicles that are at the front end of technological development. Despite the continued real-terms increases, pressures on the defence budget are well documented. Additional spending on operations in Afghanistan has risen to reflect the situation, from £700 million in 2006 to more than £3 billion this year, and that is on top of a defence budget of more than £35 billion a year. We are adjusting the core defence budget to reprioritise Afghanistan, and that means some tough choices: for example, we have cancelled some Territorial Army training that is not related to Afghanistan. Let me assure the House that no individual deploying to Afghanistan does so without the required training: no TA soldier will be deployed on operations unless the Army is satisfied that he is properly trained and properly prepared. Those deploying over the next year will of course continued to be paid for the training that they do, as well as for the deployment. That is what making Afghanistan the main effort means, and I make no apology—no apology at all—for moving resources in that direction. That means that pain has to be taken elsewhere, but Afghanistan, with 9,000 people in theatre, has to be the main effort. I have the agreement of the chiefs of staff that that should be so, and we are looking at the degree to which it means that we prioritise resources in the direction of Afghanistan, but, as I have said, I make no apology to the House for doing so.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 497 c468-9
- Session
- 2008-09
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Contracts Armed forces Defence Deployment Casualties Defence equipment Iraq Helicopters Pakistan Military aircraft Military alliances Rehabilitation Terrorism Training Reserve forces Reform Afghanistan NATO al Qaeda Taliban ISAF
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 13:31:09 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_584907
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_584907
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_584907