---

Defence

I will make some progress, then I will give way. The shadow Secretary of State also referred to the leaked report from the Chief of the General Staff, but he did not highlight the fact that, in that report, the Chief of the General Staff rightly said that""soldiers feel increasingly well supported and resourced on operations,"" and praised the""medical care in-theatre and in the UK"." The Chief of the General Staff rightly highlighted the challenge of supporting personnel between tours, but it is important that we look at those issues in their full context. To sum up the shadow Secretary of State's contribution, it was General Dannatt who, when he was appointed to the Conservative Front Bench, explained that he had been asked to contribute to defence matters because the Leader of the Opposition had told him that the defence team lacked expertise. Having listened to the shadow Secretary of State's speech, I can say that that expertise still seems sadly to be lacking. The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), who leads for the Scottish nationalists, asked why the MOD had spent £4.3 billion less than the population-based apportionment of defence spending to Scotland over the past five years. I have to say—he and I have debated this before—that his analysis fundamentally misunderstands how defence operates. We operate on a United Kingdom basis—that is the most effective way to do it—not on a country-by-country basis. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Willie Rennie), who leads for the Liberal Democrats, made several comments about the state of accommodation. Let me be clear—the Government have consistently been clear—that for decades there has been under-investment in the defence accommodation estate. This Government, through their commitments, are putting that right. Over the past two years we have upgraded the condition of 1,800 properties to the highest of the four standards. We are committed to upgrading a further 800 in this financial year, and 800 a year thereafter. This is not a Government who are speaking; this is a Government who are acting to improve the support to our military. The hon. Gentleman also talked about Trident and nuclear disarmament. He gave scant credit to this Government's record on disarmament. We have reduced the explosive capability of our nuclear arsenal by 75 per cent. We have led the way internationally. We are rightly and objectively recognised as the most forward-leaning nuclear weapons state. To ignore that reality—the hon. Gentleman shakes his head—does not do him or his arguments any credit. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) said that his speech in this debate might be his last. I pay tribute to the work that he has done, having occupied my post in the past, and to the significant contribution that he has made to defence matters. He rightly highlighted the dangers of an overtly party political and partisan approach to defence matters. Indeed, if we look at Afghanistan, the reality is that if the Conservatives had been in government since 2001, they would have acted little differently from how this party has acted, faced with that challenge. To suggest otherwise—to accentuate the difference, rather than highlighting common ground—risks undermining our mission in Afghanistan. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Robert Key) for his dedicated commitment to defence over many years. Nevertheless, he criticised our stewardship of the military covenant. That was unjustified and wrong, if one looks at the service Command Paper, the doubling of compensation to the most seriously injured personnel and the improvements in accommodation, and at the free further and higher education. Those are not the actions of a Government who are resiling from their responsibilities and their commitment towards the armed forces. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy), who has wide defence expertise and understanding, articulately outlined the improvements in the welfare package to service personnel that we have delivered, and for which I know she has argued. The hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) asked about the Talisman system. Talisman is a route clearance system, and part of our solution to the problem of improvised explosive devices. It is being used in Afghanistan now and is at full operating capability, including in Operation Moshtarak. It is important to make that clear. The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) made an interesting and well thought out contribution, but I disagreed with him when he allied it with the hon. Lady's contribution, making the accusation that the Lisbon treaty would bring about a European Union army. That is absolutely not true; indeed, nothing could be further from the truth. The treaty makes it clear that defence provision will""not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States"." It makes no more sense to talk about the common security and defence policy as a European army than it does to talk about NATO as a transatlantic army or the European Union as a world army.