Proceeding contribution from Andrew Murrison (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Monday, 15 March 2010. It occurred during Debate on Defence in the World.
Defence in the World
Indeed; the hon. Gentleman's comment is on the record. I think that there was a Member from the SNP here earlier, but he has gone and I do not think that he made a contribution. Let me start by discussing the speech of the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey). I rather regret that he fudged the issue of the independent strategic nuclear deterrent. He seems to think that we could whistle up a deterrent virtually overnight, but that is disingenuous. I am afraid that it is an example of the Liberal Democrats trying to have it both ways so that they can sing different songs to different audiences. That point was picked up obliquely, and understandably, by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy), when she spoke about submarines. The hon. Gentleman spoke about European defence and I intend to spend some time dealing with that. He also made a point about accelerated senility in relation to equipment, and the fact that urgent operating requirements do not really address it properly. He might have mentioned that procurement clawback is very relevant to that issue and that the two things combined are storing up trouble for the decade ahead, as we address the replacement of kit. His point about senility was well made, however. We first became aware of it in relation to sand and vehicles in Iraq in 2003. It seems that we may not have learned some of the lessons. The hon. Gentleman wanted minimisation of civilian casualties in Helmand and Kandahar. He is absolutely right to point out that it should be an imperative. General McChrystal has made it clear that it is mission critical. Of course, we have to consider how such things play not only internationally but also on the stage at home. As I shall point out later, the danger is that we might lose the war on the home front. Our domestic audience is keen that we reduce collateral as far as possible, as I know is the case on the ground. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton was savaged by the Liberal Democrats—a bit like being savaged by a dead sheep, but there we are—when she suggested that we need to maintain critical skills. We are probably dealing with our sovereign capability, and she is right to say that we cannot simply invent skills of that sort, as I know full well from my own service: they are of a high order and need to be maintained in one way or another. The hon. Lady asserted that we need European defence to deal with piracy. Having been nice to her until now, I point out ever so gently that she did not provide much evidence to back up that assertion. A miscellany of nations is operating off Yemen and Somalia, in a highly complex overlapping operation, which hardly depends on the EU except in so far as it relies heavily on Permanent Joint Headquarters, Northwood.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 507 c685
- Session
- 2009-10
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Armed forces Defence Deployment Defence equipment National security Nuclear weapons Public expenditure Proliferation Terrorism Security Afghanistan
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 20:18:45 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_630694
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_630694
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_630694