---

Defence

May I begin by paying tribute to all our serving armed forces and their families? We remember, in particular, those who have lost their lives recently or who have been injured in the service of their country. This could well be my last contribution to a defence debate as a Member of this House and I am grateful to Her Majesty's Opposition for securing the debate and for giving me the opportunity to make a brief speech. Over the life of this Parliament, I have tried to focus on three areas of defence: the personal safety of our troops; the correct equipment for the conflict; and appropriate expenditure to match the threat. I was once referred to, in a Westminster Hall debate that I had instigated, as an armchair general by no less than the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), who sadly is not in his place today. He said that he imagined me playing with my toys at the kitchen table. I was a little cross at the time, but I did not take him to task about it. Even in that capacity it was not difficult to predict, as I did in 2006, the future deadly use of improvised explosive devices in Afghanistan based on the military's previous experience in Iraq and to realise how unprepared we were for that type of warfare. Some military thinking is, thankfully, changing at long last. I was delighted to read the address made by the Chief of the General Staff, General Sir David Richards, to the International Institute for Strategic Studies on 18 January this year, to which I will refer later. There is no doubt that the infantry, in particular, has changed beyond all recognition over the last decade in its provision of body armour, weaponry and vision and night sights. Those who have contributed to that advancement deserve all credit. However, there are still areas in which constructive criticism can be made, especially those concerning mine route clearing vehicles. That was an issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) and I raised in oral Defence questions last week. To quote the Secretary of State, the big task that our troops need to undertake is to""tackle the IED networks, through the increased use of intelligence, so that we can be proactive in taking apart the networks that seek to target our troops."—[Official Report, 22 February 2010; Vol. 506, c. 5.]" I should be grateful if the Minister could update the House on how the Talisman project is performing, although I am still at a loss to know why we entered into the Iraq and Afghan conflicts virtually unprepared when we had appropriate equipment in Bosnia in the form of Chubby sets. The House will know that I have, in modern parlance, "banged on" about vehicles being designed from scratch for blast deflection rather than blast absorption. On that basis, I have been critical of certain vehicles—none more so than the Jackal. It is a superb vehicle for special forces but not for general patrol duties. The entry of the company Supacat with its SPV400 into the light protected patrol vehicle programme vindicates the strong case that I made initially in the face of hostility and criticism, with the vehicle being designed around a V-shaped hull. The managing director of Supacat has been quoted as saying that the new design was developed as a result of the experience of the Jackal. It has, of course, been developed not just because of the fundamental flaws of the Jackal but because of competition from Force Protection, a company that was years ahead of the game, which, in relation to the Rhodesian and South African experiences, took a leaf out of that book. Force Protection must be credited with having saved the lives of thousands of service personnel in the British, American and Canadian armies in contrast to those that were playing catch-up. We have made progress in that area, but there are still those who think that those vehicles are at the lower end of the military pecking order. I believe that they are wrong, for without those vehicles the UK does not stand a chance in low-tech conflicts. Without them, the Army would probably be defeated. I believe that those vehicles will be used continuously in the future, not least because their design allows greater freedom and scope for different strategies and tactics to prevail. My one regret is that little or no progress has been made on aircraft that use single or twin propellers, which is very disappointing. As soon as I mention that, the fast jet brigade try to shoot me down, although those aircraft are very difficult to shoot down. However, I see that I now have an ally in General Richards himself, who has recognised the advantages of aircraft such as the Super Tucano. In a recent speech, he said:""If one equips more for this type of conflict while significantly reducing investment in higher-end war-fighting capability, suddenly one can buy an impressive amount of 'kit'. Whilst, as you will hear, I am emphatically not advocating getting rid of all such equipment, one can buy a lot of UAVs or Tucano aircraft for the cost of a few JSF and heavy tanks."" In the same speech, he asked:""Can we take the risk? Well we have to take risk somewhere or run the far greater one of trying with inadequate resources to be all things to all conflicts and failing to succeed in any."" Other nations' air forces are rapidly increasing numbers of those aircraft, not to displace fast jets, but to work in tandem with them. There are considerable advantages to using such aircraft, especially in counter-insurgency operations. It is surely a great error of judgment that that area appears not to have been more thoroughly explored. Helicopters are another area in which there was no need to go overboard with such expensive, over-technical aircraft, however great they may be. We have had massive expenditure on the Danish Merlins, Chinooks that did not work, and all our helicopters have had to be upgraded to make them fit for Afghanistan, many with Carson blades, but we could have had a fleet of twin-bladed Bell 212s, known as Hueys, or the four-bladed version, the Bell 412. The UK could have had sufficient numbers of aircraft that were perfectly adequate for purpose and considerably better value for money. Some tasks could have been undertaken more efficiently with fixed-wing aircraft such as the Pilatus Porter, which has a payload of just over a tonne. I fear that some minds are still set in the state-on-state conventional war scenario, harking back to the past, rather than facing up to the present, decidedly murky character of counter-insurgency. I see that what I am saying is amusing the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) greatly.