I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require persons of 17 years and under to wear a safety helmet when riding a bicycle; and for connected purposes.

From reading The Highway Code, one would think that it is already compulsory to wear a safety helmet when cycling. It states that

“you should wear a cycling helmet which conforms to current regulations”.

Yet, that is not the law. It is, however, mandatory for children to wear safety helmets when playing cricket or riding a horse. Why should they not do so when riding a bike, the dangers of which are far greater?

My proposed Bill has received support from both sides of the House, and I thank my fellow sponsors. When it was originally drafted, I proposed that the upper age limit for the mandatory wearing of a cycle helmet should be 17 years. However, having listened to representations from the Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust, the CTC—the cyclists’ touring club—and other interested groups, I shall propose an amendment in Committee to reduce the maximum age for the compulsory wearing of a cycle helmet to 14.

The issue was first brought to my attention as part of my “Listening to Wellingborough and Rushden” campaign. In addition, my excellent and informative local weekly newspaper, the Herald & Post, has been actively campaigning for a change in the law. Lawrence John, the senior reporter at the paper who has led the campaign, started a petition to make it compulsory for children to wear cycling helmets when riding their bikes.

After researching the issue extensively, I felt that I needed to do all that I could as a Member of Parliament to seek legislation further to protect child cyclists. The Bill is designed to save lives and reduce injuries, including very serious head injuries, and to save the NHS millions of pounds of costs in treating and rehabilitating injured child cyclists.

In 2006, child cyclist deaths rose by 55 per cent. In 2005, there were 20 deaths. Last year, there were 31 deaths, or nearly three a month. In response to a parliamentary question that I asked of the Department of Health, the Minister stated that, in a three-year period from 2003, 17,786 children aged 14 and under were admitted to NHS hospitals in England because of injuries incurred while cycling. This is not a minor matter. That figure does not include the many thousands who attend accident and emergency, are patched up and then sent home, nor does it include those who are admitted to hospitals in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. In the past three years, more than 1,600 children were killed or very seriously injured when riding their bikes. The Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust estimates that 85 per cent. of head injuries to child cyclists would be reduced or eliminated entirely if a helmet was worn. A cycle helmet absorbs 12 mph of energy and reduces the energy impact by that amount in all crashes.

One argument that I have come across against compulsion is that if a juggernaut crashes into a child at 70 mph, a cycle helmet will not prevent injury. Of course it will not, but that is not what I am saying. I am saying not that children wearing a cycle helmet will emerge from a crash scratch-free but that the impact of the crash will be reduced by 12 mph of energy, thus lessening injury and saving lives. That could be the difference between a child having a serious head injury that will require 24-hour care for the rest of his life and a child suffering a minor concussion. For a child with a serious head injury needing long-term rehabilitation, the cost has been estimated at £250,000 for the first year alone. Children who have suffered severe head injuries require a lifetime of long-term help at the cost of millions of pounds. That, of course, ignores the pain and suffering of the victim and their family. Their quality of life, and that of their family, suffers greatly as a result of such an injury.

My Bill would not make it mandatory for those over the age of 14 to wear safety helmets when cycling. Older children and adults can make up their own minds about the risks involved. However, a child’s skull depth is less that half that of an adult and only reaches full depth in his late teens. Therefore, a child’s head has less natural protection than that of an adult. Children are also less experienced cyclists than adults and are more likely to have an accident when riding on the public highway.

Throughout my campaign, I have had meetings with the Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust, the CTC, RoadPeace and the Minister of State for Transport. I was very encouraged by the meeting I had with the Minister in June and welcome the Government’s independent investigation. I am, however, concerned about its time scale, which could be up to two years. I believe that we need legislation now to help to prevent further serious injury and death to children when riding their bikes.

Last November, I presented to Parliament the petition organised by the Herald and Post. I should like to praise the Herald and Post for all its work in raising awareness in this field.

I have been presented with some arguments against my Bill and I would like to take this opportunity to explain why I think those arguments are not enough to prevent legislation from going through.

One argument against the Bill—often made with great force—is that it is yet more legislation intended to turn our country into a nanny state. Well, speaking as a right-wing son of Thatcher and a member of Cornerstone, I am not known for supporting an enlargement of the nanny state in any way, shape or form. This measure is not intended to dictate to adults how they should live their lives. It is designed for children who, at the age of 14 and under, are not able to take the decision for themselves. When they reach 15, they will have the choice of whether to wear a cycle helmet. I reiterate that I have no intention of bringing in this Bill for adults or anyone over the age of 14.

Another argument against the Bill is that it will put children off cycling. I can safely say that my six-year-old son, Thomas, has no problems with wearing a cycle helmet when riding his bike—and what a good job he is doing at it! [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I see no reason why the Bill would persuade other children to give up cycling or not to take it up in the first place.

Many countries across the globe have introduced legislation to make it compulsory for children to wear cycle helmets. In Canada, a study of the level of cycling following such legislation showed that there had been no reduction. Likewise, cycling rates are among the highest in the world in Australia, where similar legislation was introduced 16 years ago. I believe that if people oppose this Bill, they are actually saying that children should not wear cycle helmets. It is either right or not right for children to wear safety helmets when riding—and if it is right, we should make it compulsory.

The Bill is about plain common sense. It is about protecting our children. It is about saving millions of pounds for the NHS. It is about reducing injury to children and saving their lives. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Peter Bone, Mr. Graham Allen, John Bercow, Mr. Geoffrey Cox, Andrew George, Mr. Philip Hollobone, Mr. Mark Lancaster, Mr. Eric Martlew, Andrew Miller and Sir George Young.

Bicycles (Children’s Safety Helmets)

Mr. Peter Bone accordingly presented a Bill to require persons of 17 years and under to wear a safety helmet when riding a bicycle; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 October, and to be printed [Bill 186].

I am sure that the whole House will join me in expressing condolences to the family and friends of Lance-Corporal Sarah Holmes of 29th Regiment Royal Logistics Corps, who died in support of operations in Iraq.

I welcome this debate on defence policy. I particularly welcome the opportunity to focus on the strategic direction for our armed forces, which is all too often overlooked in the understandable focus on day-to-day issues. The UK’s defence policy was laid out in the strategic defence review of 1998 and re-confirmed in our White Paper in 2003. The vision is

“to defend the UK and its interests, including against terrorism, strengthen international peace and stability, and act as a force for good in the world”.

That vision defines the role of our armed forces in the world. It requires us to have forces capable of acting across the full spectrum of military activity, from conflict prevention to war fighting. It requires us to work effectively across Whitehall with other Departments—notably the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development—and with our allies and partners around the world. We could not deliver that vision without the men and women of our armed forces.

Last Friday, I was reminded of all those who have lost their lives in the service of this country since world war two. The dedication of those involved with the armed forces memorial in Staffordshire is an appropriate and timely reminder of the debt that this nation and others owe to the men and women of our forces.

As we debate our defence policy, it is important to remind ourselves of the challenges that we are likely to face in the future: international terrorism, weapons of mass destruction proliferation, fragile states and intransigent regimes. Of course, other pressures will complicate our response to such challenges: climate change, energy security, pressure on natural resources and social, technological and geopolitical change.

The UK has a significant part to play in improving the international community’s preparedness for such challenges, not least through our armed forces. Our foreign and defence policies decide where, how and with whom we are likely to deploy our armed forces. The judgment made in the SDR in 1998 was that we were likely to deploy alongside allies and partners, and that has been validated by recent operations. That will continue to be the policy for the foreseeable future for any medium or large-scale military operation.

The House has questioned Defence Ministers regularly and appropriately in recent months about tour intervals and harmony guidelines, so it is worth my taking some time to explain that important part of our defence policy. We have planned on the basis that we should have armed forces capable of conducting one enduring medium-scale operation and one enduring small-scale operation at the same time, while retaining the capacity to conduct a third small-scale operation for a limited period—all while keeping within harmony guidelines, which, for the Army, are to have 24 months between six-month operational deployments. Having such a force structure also enables us to conduct a large-scale operation, such as that in Iraq in 2003, or a second medium-scale operation, such as that in Afghanistan, for limited periods, albeit with the consequence that those ideal tour intervals will not be achieved. That is the position that we have been in for the past few years.

I am pleased to say, however, that conditions in Northern Ireland mean that the Army no longer has to maintain forces dedicated to assisting the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Conditions on the ground in Bosnia have also allowed us to reduce our presence there and, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced to the House last week, we plan to reduce our forces in Iraq by the spring of 2008.

Those reduced commitments go some way towards allowing our servicemen and women the time at home that they need to recuperate and to see their families. The overriding lesson has been that our defence planning assumptions and our force structure have succeeded in generating the sort of capabilities that we need to deploy. But that is not the whole story, as many right hon. and hon. Members know. Emerging technologies such as unmanned aerial vehicles, and the need to respond to a rapidly evolving threat, present commanders with new opportunities and new constraints. We need to match that with the necessary force structure—involving additional UAV units and battlefield helicopters, for example—but perhaps balanced by fewer anti-submarine warfare assets.

We keep our force structure under regular review, with an eye to what we need to protect our interests both nationally and in the multilateral context in which we are most likely to deploy. The outcome of the comprehensive spending review allows us to do just that. It provides 1.5 per cent. annual real-terms growth in the defence budget to 2010-11, thus cementing a decade of real growth. By 2011, the defence budget will be more than 10 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1997-98.

I hope that the Secretary of State will forgive me for conveying the sentiment of many in the armed forces that he seems to be putting a very brave face on the situation in his Department. Although it is true that defence spending may have risen by 10 per cent. in real terms since 1997, it is also true that the United States has increased its spending by 60 per cent., the Russian Federation by 148 per cent., India by 40 per cent., and China by 129 per cent. Why are we falling so far behind so many of our international comparators?

The first point that I make to the hon. Gentleman—and others in his party who constantly look for comparators to justify, in their terms, the allegation of cuts in UK defence spending, which they have thankfully moved away from—is that our real-terms growth in defence spending contrasts significantly with what happened during the last years of the Government whom he supported. They cut defence spending by £0.5 billion a year in real terms. The challenge for him and his Front-Bench spokesmen is not whether they can compare spending in the UK, in its particular circumstances, with spending in any other country that they might identify. I could identify many countries where the comparison goes the other way.

The challenge for his party is to match the level of spending to which we have committed in the spending review and to say whether it intends to spend more on defence—and, if so, to say what it would spend that money on and which public services it would cut in order to spend it. If the hon. Gentleman and his Front-Bench spokesmen are not prepared to engage in that debate, they cannot be allowed to seek solace in comparisons that they have drawn out of the air. The circumstances of the US, Russia, China or India are not our circumstances. I am talking about a continuum of which we should be proud: real increases and real investment in defence, which are reflected in how we are able to support and equip our troops in the operational theatre.

Will the Secretary of State give way?

The hon. Gentleman can make a speech if he wants to. I am sure that other hon. Members will want to intervene on me.

Multilateralism has been a cornerstone of our defence and security policies for over 50 years. The United Nations stands at the pinnacle of the world’s efforts to create a coherent and effective multilateral approach. We fully support the role of the UN to resolve tensions and crises around the world. Currently, it is running an unparalleled number of peace support operations, with more than 100,000 military and police personnel from numerous nations deployed by the UN in operations around the world. During the past year, 110 nations have contributed troops to UN peace support operations.

There are currently about 300 UK military personnel deployed on 10 UN operations, including missions conducted in partnership with the African Union and the European Union. Such partnering between organisations is essential if we are to cope with the increasingly complex and demanding missions that we face.

I have just returned from Afghanistan, and I find myself blaming the United Nations for not co-ordinating efforts in that country. I appreciate that the Secretary of State shares my frustration, but does he not think it is now time to have an individual co-ordinator—an authoritative voice—to link the work of the UN, the European Union, the Department for International Development, the United States of America and, indeed, the international security assistance force? I believe that the window of opportunity is closing in that country, and a lot of the blame lies with the United Nations.

I know that the hon. Gentleman recently visited Afghanistan, and I am still examining the interesting list of issues that were raised with him when he met tribal leaders, and taking advice about it. I will respond to him, and I await the letter that he promised, which will raise other issues. I am grateful for the constructive way in which he has contributed to the debate relating to strategy and development after his visits to Afghanistan.

I am not surprised that, as a result of the hon. Gentleman’s visit, he has come to the same conclusion about Afghanistan that I came to some time ago. Several things need to evolve out of the present circumstances in Afghanistan if we are to make progress towards the success that the situation there can still be, despite the efforts of the Taliban and others to disrupt it. One of those things is that the international community involved in this operation throughout the country needs a single leadership. There is no question about that.

I have to say—I believe that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear this—that none of our international partners thinks otherwise. [Interruption.] He asks from a sedentary position, “What about the Foreign Office?” He should know that the Foreign Office, together with the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development, has advocated for many months the policy that he mentioned. We have worked closely together to achieve the point that we have reached.

In summary, everybody is convinced of the merits of the argument. We will quickly move through the current phase of identifying the appropriate person and getting them in post. That is only the beginning. The challenge that follows is to ensure that that person can give focus and direction to all the organisations and others that operate from the international communiqué in such a way as to support and build, not undermine, the Afghan Government. That is the next stage of the challenge that the international community faces. I am pleased—and reinforced in my view—that the hon. Gentleman, who thinks long, hard and deeply about such issues, has reached the same conclusion. He should rest assured that most decision makers in the world share that view about Afghanistan. We now need to put it into practice, which might turn out to be a greater challenge than simply expressing it.

The United Nations, like all non-military organisations in Afghanistan, faces a challenge with which the hon. Gentleman is familiar. It must consider how one can sustain the duty of care to those whom it deploys into those operational theatres while recognising that there is some insecurity about them that one seldom encounters in other parts of the world where the United Nations operates. That balance is a challenge to the United Nations, but the part of my speech about that organisation was included at my insistence simply because there is a lack of knowledge in this country about the extent to which the United Nations carries out its role throughout the world and the scale of its operations in some of the most dangerous parts of the world.

Most people in this country believe that our armed forces are here to act for the security of our state and in the interests of the United Kingdom. Does not the Secretary of State genuinely feel that we may be extending our armed services too far in the number of operations in which we are prepared to take part? If we are to give soldiers the equipment that they need to give them the life that they deserve and the best chances of survival in any operation, perhaps we need to be more selective about the number of operations in which we participate. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree?

I agree that we should be discriminating about where we deploy our troops, and I believe that we have been. Indeed, the early part of my speech was designed to give hon. Members and others who may read it an indication of the way in which I am putting into practice the objective that the hon. Gentleman so eloquently sets out of allowing our armed forces the opportunity to recuperate and rebuild from the challenges that we have asked them to face, through reducing our commitment and providing space. Early in the job, I learned something that was counter-intuitive to me, given that I do not have a military background. Outside the military, if people are trained to do something and then deployed to do it, they get better at it. The military has taught me that military skills are sustained by training people, and degraded—or at least in danger of being degraded—by deploying people into operational theatres. That is counter-intuitive, but I learned that quickly from the advice and briefings that I received. I subsequently consistently sought to reach the current position and move further. To that extent, I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

However, I do not want to give the impression that I agree that it is not in our national interest to deploy our troops where they have been deployed. For example, it is manifestly in our national interest to deploy to Afghanistan. We lost the greatest number of UK citizens in a single terrorist incident in the attack on the twin towers in New York, and that terrorist atrocity was planned in Afghanistan. Ninety per cent. of the heroin that is abused on the streets and in the communities of the United Kingdom comes from Afghanistan. I understand that we will not deal with the supply of narcotics from Afghanistan in the longer term unless we deal with the issues here in the United Kingdom, but we need to do both.

Our deployment is manifestly in the interests of the people of the United Kingdom for those two reasons, if not for the fact that we as part of the international community owe the people of Afghanistan a debt of honour to support them out of the decades of conflict that they have had to suffer. Some 2 million of Afghanistan’s own people have died in getting the country to the point at which it now enjoys a limited and fragile freedom. On each occasion in the past on which the international community has promised to support Afghanistan out of conflict, it has not done so. People in this country think that it is in our interests, as a responsible member of the international community, to live up to those commitments. For all those reasons, it is in the interests of the United Kingdom that we should have troops deployed to Afghanistan.

Is it not important that we remember that such actions must be in our mutual interests? Does my right hon. Friend recall meeting, along with me, women from Helmand province who are now councillors there? They told us that it was important that we kept the security that they needed to operate as councillors in the province, so that they could take the important decisions that they need to take for themselves. Without our support, they cannot move forward in their important emerging democracy, while we at home cannot tackle the terrorism that we are experiencing unless we secure the emerging peace that we, too, vitally need.

My hon. Friend puts her argument clearly. Enabling people in countries such as Afghanistan to enjoy a quality of life and to be governed in a way that they manifestly want to be will guarantee our long-term security. Future generations in the United Kingdom will be much safer if countries such as Afghanistan and other places that had become ungoverned space—places that could be used as training grounds for terrorists and that gangsters and others could maraud around—become more stable and settled.

We face a problem in getting that across to the people of the United Kingdom, although I never find any difficulty in explaining the narcotics issue on the streets of my constituency. People understand the heroin issue clearly, because it is present in their communities. However, part of the problem in getting the argument across is that we need better to describe the end state that we believe we can allow the people of Afghanistan to take forward themselves. Part of that is substantially dependent on engaging more women in the decision-making process in such countries. I do not think that there is any doubt about that.

rose—

rose—

I intend to come to a passage later in my speech that is devoted to Afghanistan. I seem to have triggered the debate on Afghanistan a wee bit earlier than I thought I would, so if my hon. Friends want to question me specifically about Afghanistan, they might want to wait until later.

I wish to raise the issue of Darfur. We are talking about being discriminating, but there is no greater conflict in our world today than in Darfur. As we move from the African Union Mission in Sudan—AMIS—to the United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur, we, along with all other nations in the UN, are committed to ensuring that that force is properly resourced and logistically supported. Will my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that we will play our part—not with troops on the ground, but with support behind the scenes—to ensure that, when we increase the troop numbers to give the people of Darfur the security that they pray for, we also learn the lessons from AMIS’s inability to secure the ground, so that people can begin to return to their homes and live their lives in some hope that the conflict will come to an end?

My hon. Friend speaks for everybody in the House when he makes a plea for the plight of the people of Darfur, given what they have gone through, to be given the appropriate priority. I do not think that anybody would contradict him. However, as he also rightly points out, we must increasingly accept that there are different ways in which we can support different operations. I am proud, as I am sure others are, of the cross-party political leadership that we in the United Kingdom have given on Darfur and of the contribution that our Prime Minister made, along with other international partners, in leading the United Nations to an unequivocal resolution that allowed the forces that he recognises as necessary to be deployed. That is underpinned by consistent and persistent investment in development for Darfur, and the support of others.

I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware, however, that the sustainable improvement of the security of people in places such as Darfur can be supported in many other ways. One of the most important is to make an appropriate contribution to the training and development of security forces in Africa, so that people who have a direct national interest, as has been mentioned, in the settlement of some intransigent conflicts in Africa have the capability and capacity to do that. Our military personnel’s valuable ability to train others in the skills learned by the British Army over centuries has been used across Africa. My hon. Friend can rest assured that we will continue to do everything that we can to support the deployment of forces in an appropriate way. The most important part of that is to give consistent international political leadership on the issue.

This week the EU announced its 3,000-man peacekeeping mission to Chad. No one suggests that that is not an appropriate action or an important role, but it will require airlift capacity and other logistic support. The Secretary of State was at the discussions with his EU partners. Will he tell the House what excuse they gave for being able to find airlift capacity and logistic support for the mission to Chad but not being able to provide additional support in Afghanistan, where we seem to be extremely short on the ground?

We will not help to encourage others—which I do a great deal—to become involved and to develop their capability and capacity to make an appropriate contribution to operations if we get into a futile bidding war about this priority as opposed to another. [Interruption.] My point is that neither the hon. Gentleman nor I are in a position to point to any atrocity in any part of the world and say that the people there are more or less deserving than others. Our responsibility, as some of the richest countries in the world collected together, is to do what we can to try to meet all those challenges, if possible, but I recognise that we cannot deal with every challenge. I do not look for such things as excuses or explanations.

On the deployment into Chad, what is happening there is, on any view, a clear extension of what is happening in Darfur, and needs to be challenged and dealt with just as much. If we do not challenge at both sides of the border, we will find ourselves in a difficult situation. As a matter of fact, strategic airlift is still a challenge there, and is not yet resolved. We are not in the comfortable position that the hon. Gentleman suggests, in which people say that they can do that but they cannot do something else. People are trying to do, in good faith, what they believe is right—to deal with difficult circumstances in different parts of the world. His point in relation to people living up to their commitments is not lost on me, and I shall return to it shortly.

Beneath the United Nations, NATO remains central to our collective defence and security needs, as it has been for almost 60 years. We also recognise the important benefits that the EU, with its wide range of civil and military capabilities, can bring to resolving crises. We are working hard to build the capabilities and effectiveness of both organisations in a mutually supportive way, so that their efforts and capabilities complement each other rather than duplicate or compete.

We expect NATO allies and EU partners to meet their responsibility in sharing the risks and costs of collective action. Many are doing so and we salute their efforts. But the contribution of some European nations is quite disappointing. All are answerable to their own people and Parliaments, but NATO and European solidarity do not have an opt-out clause.

Our armed forces do not work in isolation. We must use effectively all the levers available to Government: reconstruction and development, foreign diplomacy and the military. That has become known as a “comprehensive approach”. Crucially—because it is these other efforts that will eventually bring lasting peace—the strategic military effort should be driven by political and economic needs, not the other way round. However, at tactical and operational level the military are often leading, and need support from diplomats and development experts. We are working across Government, with non-governmental organisations, allies and partners, to improve our collective ability to do that. Nowhere is the comprehensive approach more vital than in Afghanistan.

In reply to an earlier intervention, the Secretary of State made the point that in Afghanistan the United Nations agencies were under pressure from the Taliban, whose members were effectively trying to kill their people on the ground. May I put it to him that wherever we are up against militant Islam—or, indeed, other forces such as those confronting the troops deployed in Darfur—we are subject to such risks? It is a fact of the modern military environment that civilians are targeted. I suggest that part of the solution lies in a degree of blurring of the military-civilian interface, and in bringing more civilian skills and expertise to the military framework through reserve forces and other wider measures, rather than simply trying to persuade what are essentially civilian agencies to do work on which they will ultimately be unable to deliver.

On the basis of my experience—particularly in Afghanistan, but also in Iraq—and my observation of other areas that I have not visited regularly, there is much in what the hon. Gentleman says, but his suggestion brings with it other challenges. We must be careful not to create a scenario in which we blur the distinction between NGOs and the military to such an extent that we create an environment in which people other than those described by the hon. Gentleman can operate. I think he will understand that that is a trap. We do not want to drive NGOs out of the environment; we want to create an environment into which we can bring them with a degree of security.

This is a lively and current debate between Governments, NGOs, allies and others. It is an engaged debate: no one is shirking the responsibilities that it brings us collectively. But we must find a way of giving NGOs confidence to deploy their workers and others in the environment that we create, where they do not become the target because they are accused of being part of the military structure. That is important. I see the hon. Gentleman nodding in agreement.

We need to consider the issue carefully. It is difficult to establish exactly how it should be dealt with. I should be happy to continue this conversation with the hon. Gentleman—here and in other locations—to try to resolve it, but resolve it we must. I should point out to him that one of the first decisions I made in relation to Afghanistan was to increase our forces there by the deployment of engineers. As he knows, those engineers had a significant effect on the ability to deliver reconstruction in a way that increased the confidence of local people that the challenges posed by the Taliban in their communities were worth taking up, because there was an immediate reward.

I do not mean to make an excessively partisan point, but one of the parts of the Territorial Army that was cut the most was the TA section of the Royal Engineers, although there has been some build-back in the future army strategy. Many of the skills that the Secretary of State has mentioned are readily available in civilian life. The deployment of TA Royal Engineers units would be a very good way of dealing with the present circumstances—until, obviously, an environment is created in which NGOs can once more play a part.

I entirely agree. I do not wish to compete with the hon. Gentleman as a cheerleader for the Territorial Army—I know he has many more years’ experience of that than I have—but I have been astonished and impressed not just by the skills but by the commitment that its members bring to their job. I recognise the point that the hon. Gentleman makes in relation to the specific issue, but I am also glad that he recognises the complications of doing that on a grander scale. We must work our way through these matters.

Afghanistan is a noble cause. We cannot allow it to slip once more into disorder, or again to become a haven for international terrorism, nor can we abandon the Afghan people, who have embarked on a course of democracy and peace. We have made significant progress since 2001, but Afghanistan remains a fragile state. To show that it is heading in the right direction, let me repeat some of the indicators of progress there—I hope that those who have heard them before will forgive me. Forty thousand Afghan national army troops have been trained and equipped—indeed, I think that that figure is now out of date and that there are significantly more such troops. Of its refugees, 4.8 million have returned home; that has not been matched by any other country in the world, as nowhere else is there evidence of so many people voluntarily returning because of a change in the political and social environment of a country from which they had sought refuge. Eighty-three per cent. of the population now has access to medical facilities; for substantial parts of Afghanistan before 2001 that figure was in the teens rather than the 80s. More than 5 million children are in education, in excess of 1 million of whom are girls who were not educated at all when the Taliban ran the country. President Karzai recently observed in passing—although it is a significant fact—that for the first time in almost 40 years Afghanistan was close to becoming self-sufficient in food production; that is a major achievement, and it has been achieved in a comparatively short time.

However, these advances must be protected and built upon, and doing so will involve facing up to some serious challenges, most of which are not military. Our armed forces are doing the most superb job in protecting the Afghan people from the Taliban, but we must continue to help the Afghans exploit the space that we create, by helping them to govern effectively, to establish and administer fair laws that reflect their society and to spend the international aid they receive. The results must be felt for generations, not for months and years. The will is there, but we must help them develop the means.

Although I take issue with the Secretary of State on the wisdom of our continued presence in Afghanistan, I am sure that we both agree that our troops on the ground are doing excellent work and that we must seriously consider their welfare and morale. Has he received reports of, for example, forward units in Helmand spending 40 days on ration packs and it not being possible to resupply them? Is that the case? Is the Secretary of State aware of such reports, and if so, what does he think that does for the morale of the soldiers?

I am certainly now aware of such reports, but there is not a jot of truth in them. My hon. Friend ought to be very careful about what he says, because of the possible effect on troops’ families back here in the UK of repeating some of the dishonesties that are at large about the circumstances of our forces on the ground in Afghanistan. I know that he will be careful, because he is a responsible person. He asks me directly whether there is any truth in this; I tell him directly that there is no truth in this.

That having been said, however, we must understand that war fighting is dirty, difficult and dangerous. Part of what has been happening over the past months is that because of mass communications, the people of this country, including a generation that has never seen this before, are being exposed in real time—or as near to that as one can get—to the reality of what war fighting is like. Frankly, as I have said, it is dirty, difficult and dangerous. We ought to understand that that is what we ask some of our young people to do, and that it is what we train them for. It devalues their skill, commitment and bravery to point out every single deprivation that comes with war fighting as being somehow a failure on the part of the Ministry of Defence, the Government or some bureaucrat to support them. Sometimes, some of the circumstances in which our people find themselves—and in which their morale is at its highest—are simply a consequence of the very violence that they have to deal with, and from which they have to deliver the communities that they seek to protect.

I make that point clearly to Members and others. We ought to be careful not to devalue the bravery and contribution of the people whom we train to do this difficult and dangerous work by describing all its difficult aspects as some sort of failure by a bureaucrat. And as a matter of fact, what my hon. Friend described is not happening.

Of course, the country that has lost the most men in the Afghan conflict is Pakistan. More than 800 Pakistani soldiers have been killed as the Pakistani armies tried to help on the eastern flank. Does my right hon. Friend accept that the vast bulk of the Pakistani military have to be on their eastern flank, facing Kashmir, because of the half a million Indian soldiers there and the continuing troubles? If India could cut Pakistan some slack on Kashmir, more Pakistani troops could be heading west to patrol and to help us as we try to solve problems in Afghanistan.

My right hon. Friend is right, to the extent that none of the challenges, difficulties, conflicts and confrontations that exist in that region can be resolved on its own; they are all interrelated. Beyond the issues that we have been debating in the past few minutes, there is no doubt that the fact that the ethnic Pashtun people stretch beyond the Durand line into Pakistan, and that parts of the federally administered tribal areas of Pakistan—in which there are very significant issues about radicalisation and radical Islam—that are substantially ungoverned, are related to and interrelated in the Afghan situation. That is why we will never find a solution to these problems for the Afghan people without the recognition that there is a significant Pakistani element in this, but also vice versa. That has to be part of the international community’s objective in dealing with this issue. As my right hon. Friend points out, once one gets to Pakistan and into the issues that the Pakistani Government face, one very quickly finds oneself on the other border, considering other issues. So all these issues are, as I said, interrelated.

The challenges that we face in Afghanistan are significant and will take decades of hard work to address, but tackle them we must. Only through an effective and truly multilateral approach will we and the Afghan people have a chance to make that country free from the oppression of the Taliban, and to give all its people—men and women—the opportunities that we, thankfully, take for granted.

In the past 17 months, I have visited Iraq six times. There has been progress, but it has not been easy. However, we have remained true to our strategy of transition, building the Iraqis’ capacity to take responsibility for their own security. Frankly, this is the only sensible strategy, and I believe that the last year has shown that it is working. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister confirmed last week, we have now transferred three out of four provinces in southern Iraq for which we had responsibility, and we are on track for Basra to follow suit before 2008. This represents very real progress, which is firmly driven by objective assessments of the evolving situation on the ground. It has become manifestly clear over the past weeks that that is not only our assessment, but that of the Iraqi Government and of our principal ally—the United States of America.

It is our servicemen and women who have set the conditions to enable this forward momentum, often at great personal cost. The UK has trained more than 13,000 Iraqi soldiers, and I pay tribute to their achievements in what are some of the most difficult circumstances imaginable. Yes, there have been difficulties along the way, which it would be wrong to understate, but the handover of Dhi Qar, Maysan and Muthanna has shown that Iraqi security forces can cope. More recently, the successful handover of Basra palace has allowed our personnel to place more emphasis on training, governance and border security. In this context, we have been able to take the very welcome decision to plan to reduce our force levels in Iraq to 2,500 by the spring of next year. We believe that this is a measured response to the evolving security situation and the increased capability of the Iraqis.

Although we are seeing progress in the security situation, the political arena remains very difficult, with sectarian and regional interests still too often being put before national interests. Progress in Anbar province and negotiations between General Mohan and Shi’a militia groups in Basra show that the political landscape can change for the better, but that that takes time. We also welcome the enhanced role of the UN in that regard. Ultimately, it is for the Iraqi Government to formulate and deliver policies to help the Iraqi people, but we will do all that we can to assist them.

At the time of the invasion, British military forces comprised some 30 per cent. of the UN mandated coalition’s combat power in Iraq. The Prime Minister’s announcement envisages that we will now provide perhaps less than 2 per cent. of the coalition’s combat power. Do we still stand shoulder to shoulder with our American ally?

We could not be closer. Knowing the hon. Gentleman’s interest in Iraq, I am sure that he will have pored over every word uttered by General Petraeus when he was here explaining how closely we had worked to achieve what we have achieved in southern Iraq. If that was not good enough for him, he probably pored over every word uttered by Secretary Gates on his visit here only last week, when he confirmed that what we are doing was entirely consistent with what the Americans are doing. We therefore could not be closer to the US, and that is to be expected, although I know that the reduction in British troop numbers is counter-intuitive, especially given that it happened when the numbers of US troops were surging. However, those who understand the diversity of Iraq and the extent of the differences between provinces know that our action was entirely consistent with what the Americans were doing, given the different environment facing our troops. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the people in the US who know best about these matters—and they include General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, who for some months now have been responsible for US policy in Iraq—have given evidence that confirms that.

In the summer, quite a few people argued that if we drew down our troops from Basra palace and handed it over to Iraqi troops, there could be a danger that the number of attacks on British troops at the air base would rise significantly, and that the security problems faced by civilians in Basra could get worse. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that exactly the opposite has happened?

I can, of course, confirm that exactly the opposite has happened—thus far. I make that qualification because I recognise that the situation is very fragile and that it is very important that the negotiations between General Mohan and those others who seek to exercise political power and economic influence in southern Iraq are sustained. We can create the opportunity for such negotiations and discussions to take place, but we cannot be a party to them, as they are for Iraqis to sort out between themselves. As long as progress is being made in that regard, the relationship that I have described will be sustained.

We hear constant predictions that things are about to melt down in Iraq, but it is always possible, at any stage in the transition, that things will go either right or wrong. Many people out there know that it is a 50:50 bet and so always opt for pessimism, on the basis that that gives them a 50 per cent. chance of being right, and being able to say, “I told you so.” Thankfully, however, our judgments are a bit more sophisticated than that. At the points of transition, we do not take any step unless we are assured that we are doing so in the context of preset conditions, measurements and tests that we have agreed with others.

Until now, we have managed to make the progress that we have planned for, and broadly within the planned time scale. At each step, we have told the House and the country what the next stage of the plan would be, but I am not complacent: I know that we face a volatile and fragile set of circumstances, and that many people do not have the best interests of the UK or the Iraqi people at heart. In their briefings to me about what is going on in the operational theatre, many military commanders have told me, “You have to remember, Secretary of State, the enemy get a vote too, and we don’t control that.”

Thus far, therefore, our actions have been correct, but we must not be complacent. In the interests of the Iraqi people, and of our people too, we have to recognise that we must take the same care when it comes to the next stage of the process.

We cannot debate defence without addressing the threat of terrorism, which can emerge from abroad or at home and manifests itself against both armed forces and civilians. Its method is indiscriminate killing. Its aim is to promote an extremist ideology. As a Government, we are committed to tackling that threat at every level—its fundamental values, its spread to the disaffected, its planning, actions and representation. To do so requires hard power, to minimise the actions of terrorists, and soft power to minimise intent and recruitment.

The military play an important role in countering terrorism and British forces are working to that end as I speak, both at home and across the globe. Through capacity building we help other nations bolster their defences and contribute to the international effort.

No debate about international terrorism would be complete without considering the question of Iran. Would it ever be an acceptable outcome for the British Government for Iran to become a nuclear weapons state?

The British Government could not make clearer their position in relation to Iran’s ambition to be a nuclear weapons state. As I have said from the Dispatch Box time and time again, my view is that Iran’s behaviour—its interference in a malign fashion in Palestine, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Iraq—suggests that the country poses a strategic threat to the peace of the region in which it wants to play an important role. The irony is that Iran could play a positive role in the region; the country has shared interests with the countries in whose internal politics it seeks to interfere. I am in no doubt that the international community has adopted the right position in relation to Iran, and also that we have to stay together and pursue the arguments with the Iranians. Most importantly, we have to recruit in support of the arguments as many of the regional partners as possible, because they are the people to whom Iran will pay the greatest attention.

I am conscious of the time, and of the fact that a significant number of people want to contribute to the debate, so I shall now sum up. It is the first duty of Government to protect their people and the national interest. The Government have a clear policy framework for delivering that duty. I have endeavoured in my speech to cover some of that broad front, but of necessity I have had to make discriminating judgments and have not been comprehensive. By working with friends, allies and international institutions to reduce threat and prevent conflict, and by ensuring that our forces have the capability to intervene around the world if necessary, we will achieve our objectives.

The Secretary of State has given a comprehensive analysis of the state of play in terms of defence. He is aware of my interest in the deaths at Deepcut army barracks. A memorial was recently dedicated to those who have died in the military, whether on active service or otherwise. It has been brought to my attention that the names of the four recruits who died at Deepcut have not been recorded on the memorial. The Secretary of State may not be able to answer the question now, but he will understand that the parents are eager to know the reasoning behind the exclusion of the names from that memorial.

I speak advisedly, but if the hon. Gentleman had been in the Chamber for the beginning of my speech, he would have heard me refer to that memorial, which was dedicated last Friday. I am sure he will join other Members who approved of my words when I said that it was a timely and appropriate memorial to those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice. I am aware of the issue that he raises but, entirely appropriately, decisions about the memorial do not lie in the hands of Government and it would be wholly inappropriate if they did—they lie in the hands of trustees. It is of the essence of such a memorial that somebody has to define the descriptive phase for those whose names are entitled to be put on the memorial. The trustees sought to do that—it is a difficult thing—and, almost by definition, it is the case that people will consider that some names are so near the margin of the definition that they would be offended if the names were not included. The trustees of the memorial recognised that.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will visit the memorial, because if he does, he will see that it contains not only the names of approximately 16,000 people who have lost their lives, either on duty or to acts of terrorism, but an obelisk, which has been put there for the purpose of commemorating the deaths of those who do not fall within that necessary definition. If that is any comfort to the families whom he properly represents, that is the explanation, as I understand it. The decisions were made entirely in good faith and appropriately, but by definition, people will feel aggrieved because someone whom they consider to be very close to the description of those who are included cannot be included. That is probably an appropriate issue on which to end this speech.

May I fully associate myself and the Conservative party with the praise for the courage, professionalism and sacrifices of our armed forces? I echo the Secretary of State’s condolences to the families of all those who have lost loved ones who were defending our country’s wider security in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I intend to talk about the impact of the comprehensive spending review on our defence policy, on the state of our armed forces and on the situation in Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran. In 1997, the former Prime Minister said that if the Conservatives were re-elected, he worried that defence spending would fall to 2.6 per cent. of gross domestic product—that was his choice of measurement at the time, not ours—yet we know from this year’s CSR projections that, proportionally, what we spend on defence is likely to fall to as low as 2.018 per cent. by 2010-11.

While our military commitments have increased under this Government, the Army trained requirement has been cut from 108,500 to 102,000, the size of the Army is more than 9,000 below that initial target, one fifth of the Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships have been cut since 1997—more potentially face the axe—and the RAF has more than 100 fewer front-line fixed-wing aircraft than in 1997. I say that because the Government’s strategic defence review set out what they believed we needed to protect the country and its overseas interests, yet we are falling well below that and no explanation is ever given as to why the international environment justified those particular changes.

As a share of total Government spending, defence expenditure has fallen from 7.8 per cent. in 1998 to 6.1 per cent. in 2006. That is indicative of where defence comes in the Government’s list of priorities—that despite our being involved in two wars, those in Iraq and in Afghanistan, which have had a huge impact and an inevitable reduction in the life expectancy of much of the equipment involved. Funding from the Treasury reserve for urgent operational requirements does nothing to diminish what is, in effect, a long-term liability, which will need to be met from the core budget at some point. It is against that background that we must examine Ministers’ boasts that they will achieve a 1.5 per cent. annual real-terms spending increase.

The previous settlement that was trumpeted in those terms resulted in three infantry battalions being cut, and the loss of three destroyers and three frigates, so we are entitled to ask what the casualties will be this time around. We have heard rumours of further cuts to the surface fleet, to the size of the Army and to the RAF. I hope that today the Secretary of State will categorically rule out further cuts to the surface fleet or the Army establishment.

I have always argued for an increase in defence spending. What figure would the hon. Gentleman put on a future Conservative Government in terms of the amount of the nation’s GDP that should be spent on defence?

We would love to have had a widespread debate on this issue in a general election—if only the Government had had the courage to call one. As they say in fashion circles, “This year, Brown is the new yellow.” Who am I to comment on that?

Last week, we had an interesting debate on procurement, which some hon. Members present today attended. The point was made on several occasions about the difficulty of assessing the defence budget in the UK compared to other countries. For example, it is impossible for us to know what the commitment is for the years ahead. We asked specific questions, the answers to which are needed for the House to have a sensible debate. However, when we asked about the carriers, for example, the answer was that disclosure of the detailed estimated annual costings over the five-year period for the procurement would likely prejudice the commercial interest and cannot be provided. On the future rapid effect system, or FRES, the answer was that details would prejudice the commercial interest and cannot be provided.

The House would benefit from knowing the figures and being able to examine what is in the pipeline for front-line procurement. Only when we know the details will we know what we definitely want to commit to and what the necessary expenditure would be. If the Government were to make all those figures available to the House—I intend to ask the Public Accounts Committee to obtain them—we could have a much better debate. It would be foolish for the Opposition to make estimates or commit to figures without having full access to the books. We would want to institute immediately a proper strategic defence review, which we have not had for 11 years now, to see what we believe the future shape of our armed forces should be. As the shadow Chancellor has said, when we see what we need to spend for our defence, we can decide appropriately.

There was a much less complicated answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), if the hon. Gentleman had chosen to give it. He started by referring to percentages of GDP. If that is the best part of his argument—I assume it is, because he started with it—he must have some figure in mind. He and his right hon. and hon. Friends tell us that they were ready for an election some days ago. He must have had some figure in mind then: can he share it with us?

When the Government have the courage to face the voters and call an election, we will know what spending years we are talking about and we will set out our plans in the appropriate way. At the moment, we have no idea what budget or public finances we will inherit. The reason I started with the GDP figure was that it was not our choice of measurement, but that of Tony Blair, back in 1997. He chose to make that figure the measure of Labour’s success in dealing with armed forces expenditure.

Ministers have been trumpeting the generosity of the settlement. However, as with all the Government’s announcements, it pays to look at the small print. The settlement requires the MOD to find £2.7 billion worth of “cashable efficiency savings” on top of the £2.4 billion served up to the Treasury in the 2004 spending review. Perhaps the Secretary of State, or the Minister for the Armed Forces when he winds up later, can give us some idea where those savings will come from in the current budget.

I also note that the MOD will be required to sell off £1.5 billion worth of assets and “a significant proportion” of its electromagnetic spectrum holdings. Will the Government give us a firm commitment that all the receipts from that fire sale will be retained by the MOD? Will the Minister of State today tell us how much of the receipts will be appropriated in aid for the defence budget and how much will be returned to the Treasury? Those figures are very important in working out how much of the new procurement programmes can be afforded in the years that have been mentioned in the figures.

This is not good enough. The hon. Gentleman started his speech by saying that the present contribution of 2.018 per cent. of GDP is not enough and should be more. We are not asking what he thinks the figure should be next year or the year after, but what it should be this year. If he is not prepared to say what the figure should be for this year, it is all party political posturing and he should be ashamed of himself.

Let me go back to what the former Prime Minister said before the 1997 election:

“By 1999 defence spending will have fallen to 2.6 per cent. of GDP”—

in his eyes, a terrible failure. He went on:

“The people who have had to bear the burden of these cuts are our servicemen and women, overstretched and under strength as never before.”

However, according to the Government’s own argument, they have fallen below that GDP figure. They have increased their commitments and reduced our manpower. It is for the Government—a Government unafraid to put their record before the electorate—to defend their record in the House of Commons today. When we come to office, we will clearly set out all our proposals—and we will defend them, unlike the Government, who are clearly unwilling to do the same today, having failed by every measure that they themselves set.

I want to give my hon. Friend maximum support in resisting all the rubbish that is being thrown at him by the Government. The Government are responsible for current expenditure and for current levels of commitment. We have no idea what commitments we will face in two or three years’ time, when a general election comes around. That will be the time to determine how to match those commitments with the necessary resources.

My hon. Friend must not allow his common sense to get in the way of the Government’s red herring, or of Government Members having a good time in the Chamber. I doubt whether the arguments that they make today will carry much weight with those who have to carry out those commitments overseas, and who find themselves increasingly overstretched.

I wish to turn to the circumstances that our armed forces face, and I begin with the issue of bonuses for those on operations. As the press reported over the weekend, there is understandable animosity between military and civil personnel on operations in Iraq and Afghanistan with regard to the amount of bonus that civilians get paid, compared to their military counterparts. Let us take a major and a grade C2 civil servant as the comparators and, using monthly figures, let us see how military pay stacks up against civilian pay for those in Iraq or Afghanistan. A major—a company commander responsible for the well-being, training, health and safety of more than 225 soldiers and marines—will earn roughly £4,320 in taxable income a month, including separation allowance, plus a £386 tax-free operational allowance.

A civilian grade-C2 civil servant on the same deployment will earn £2,333 a month, plus an operational deployment allowance of £1,750 per month and an operational working allowance of between £3,500 and £6,500 a month. That means that the civilian will receive a minimum of £7,583 a month in taxable income. The civilian in headquarters is therefore at least £2,500 a month better off than the major, who is acting as a company commander in the field, and who is leading soldiers and marines in combat. It appears that the X factor needed to make civilians deploy is more than 225 per cent. of their salary, or 3.25 times their salary. Keep in mind that those figures are for a Ministry of Defence civilian, as compared to a field rank officer. Of course, the pay difference between an MOD civilian and a private or corporal is even greater, and it is the latter who are doing the shooting, the fighting and, in most cases, the dying.

I understand that civilians volunteer for service in Iraq or Afghanistan, but we have an all-volunteer military, too. I would like the Government to reflect on the following question: although civilians play an important role in supporting the armed forces on operations, are the bonuses that both parties receive balanced and proportionate? I think that the general public would answer in the negative. What about the question of eligibility for bonuses? What about the 1,000 or so soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who thought that they were going to Iraq and would receive the tax-free operational allowance, but who will find that they are going to Kuwait, Oman or other places in the Gulf?

I am sure that I do not need to remind either the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Armed Forces that the Kuwait border is only 30 miles from the Basra air base. As a result of that small difference, service members will lose out on hundreds of pounds a month, although their American counterparts receive the same bonus regardless of whether they are in Iraq, Kuwait or Qatar. If the Secretary of State made it clear that those allowances will apply to all those in the region, and not just those in Iraq, that would be a major step forward.

That is a classic example of the sort of thing that I was talking about. Based on absolutely no research, not even the courtesy of asking the MOD whether what he has described is the reality, the hon. Gentleman has asserted his case at the Dispatch Box in the House of Commons. But it is not true.

Good.

The hon. Gentleman says, “Good.” Perhaps he will now explain the basis on which he made the assertion in the first place. Is there a factual basis for it, or did he make it up for political advantage?

I am delighted that those operational bonuses will apply, because those issues have been raised with us by members of the armed forces so that they can get clarification from the Government. If it is clear that we will get such clarification, I will be delighted—and so will they be.

The hon. Gentleman now says to the House that he was asked to inquire. Why did he choose to inquire by asserting an untruth at the Dispatch Box, rather than asking me or a Minister?

Excuse me, but I thought that the purpose of the House of Commons was for us to be able to question Ministers directly. It is an entirely appropriate place to raise such issues. Now that we have clarification on those, perhaps the Secretary of State will clarify other issues—[Interruption.]

Order. The House must come to order.

The armed forces compensation scheme has recently received wide publicity, and we welcome the fact that a review was undertaken on what is obviously a broken compensation system. We still await the full results of the review. However, I was, as other Members would have been, a little perplexed that the first time we heard about that review was on 28 August, when the Minister for the Armed Forces mentioned it on Radio 4’s “PM” programme. Why was the statement not first made in the House of Commons?

As for the scheme itself, the maximum amount payable is £285,000 plus the guaranteed-income pension for the rest of a service member’s life. That is in contrast to the recent RAF civilian’s lump sum of £485,000; they would not, of course, require a guaranteed-income payment. Those numbers are widely in the public domain and have an effect on the perception of the fairness with which the systems are applied. It is important that the Government’s view on the matter should be clearly set out. Do they regard that discrepancy as fair and reasonable?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to clarify that canard as well. He is not comparing like with like. As he should know, the civil courts seek to capitalise a sum of money that will, among other things, represent the loss of income over the lifetime of a person such as those whom he describes. That would be added to the amount awarded to the person for the injury that they had suffered.

What we do is guarantee that income over the lifetime and inflation-proof it. It is possible to get actuaries and others to capitalise that and add it figuratively to the maximum sum for the pain and suffering. However, if the hon. Gentleman is to continue to make the comparison, as he has now done for a significant period, he must take into account the fact that he is not comparing like with like. The person gets a lump sum and is obliged to invest it to generate an income for the rest of their working life, until they retire; what we provide is a lump sum plus a guaranteed inflation-proofed income.

What the public will see is this: for losing limbs or major organs, someone would get a maximum of £285,000 plus a guaranteed-income pension, while someone working as a civilian who got a wrist injury would get a much larger sum and probably be back at work and able to generate their own income within a relatively short time. The public do not appreciate that discrepancy or the legalities that are being put forward—they view one as overly generous in relation to the other. I hope that the Government understand that when they finally review the matter, because the public perception of the fairness of the treatment of our armed forces is extremely important.

Let me turn to a matter that has recently been raised in the press: the treatment of military personnel in hospitals in the United Kingdom. Having visited the field hospital in Iraq, where our personnel are treated magnificently and not a single person has contracted a case of MRSA, I find it amazing that Private Jamie Cooper, the youngest British soldier to be injured in Iraq, is now back in Selly Oak with a C. difficile infection and two MRSA infections. We have to do an awful lot more about the quality of the medical care that is given. In general, the quality of care is superb, but surely something is very wrong when a field hospital can manage to have minimal infection levels, but on coming back to the UK our military personnel find that having fought off the enemy in Iraq they are having to fight off infections in the national health service of the world’s fourth richest country. Something is very wrong with a medical system that allows that to happen.

The hon. Gentleman is making me very angry. I have visited Selly Oak, and it is nothing short of shameful for him to denigrate the hard-working staff there. If he actually read the newspaper article about the case that he mentions, he would see that the consultant said that the individual contracted the disease because he had a stomach wound and that the condition related to that, not to dirty hospitals.

Now the hon. Gentleman is making me angry. I am not in any way denigrating the quality of the staff; I have already said that people get excellent care. However, there is something very wrong in our health service given the levels of infection in our NHS, to the extent that hospitals are having to be closed down.

Let me turn to the wider picture, particularly Afghanistan, and the conditions of our troops.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not a tradition of this House that a Member who makes an honest and inadvertent false assertion in debate subsequently accepts that it was a false assertion and then withdraws it and formally apologises for it? The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) has accepted that he made a false assertion this afternoon, but he seems to be coming towards the end of his speech and we have not yet heard the apology.

I have been in the Chair listening very carefully, and no false assertion has been made. I would advise all right hon. and hon. Members that for the remainder of this debate some moderation and temperate language would be acceptable.

I certainly do not need to take lessons on falsehoods when I am standing on the same side of the House as that of my election manifesto.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

In a moment.

With winter approaching in Afghanistan, and already in some higher-altitude locations, we clearly have to do everything to ensure that our service personnel are sent into theatre with the right cold weather kit. Winter conditions in Afghanistan make it challenging, at best, to resupply ammunition, kit, food and fuel. The House will want to know from the Minister for the Armed Forces that all possible measures have been taken to ensure that British forces receive all resupplies in a consistent and timely manner, as required in Afghanistan in winter. What steps will be taken to ensure that, during the lull in fighting that is traditionally experienced throughout the winter months in Afghanistan, we maximise the reconstruction effort in the south of the country? The Secretary of State dealt with that at length in his speech. It is during the harsh winter months that the Afghan population most need help from the international community, so that is when we should be able to increase local support for the British and coalition presence in the country.

When it comes to reconstruction, we really must take a properly enlightened approach. We need to ensure that our efforts are conducted in a way that empowers the people of Afghanistan. Our reconstruction efforts must foster ownership of and accomplishment in Afghanistan, not dependence on the west. We must make every effort to involve local communities and put an Afghan face on all reconstruction projects. I hope that Ministers will agree that that is the most sensible approach.

I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) and I apologise for having temporarily overlooked her.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. My point was about the nursing situation in field hospitals. My hon. Friend may be interested to learn that I recently met a Territorial Army nurse, who told me that the standard of hygiene in field hospitals was second to none for the simple reason that they had fallen back on the old-fashioned nursing techniques whereby every single person was to be responsible for themselves in their own area of expertise and for cleaning up afterwards. That was why there was virtually no infection in field hospitals in Iraq or elsewhere.

When I was a junior doctor, I learned never to argue at all with nurses and I entirely accept my hon. Friend’s point.

When it comes to reconstruction in Afghanistan, we cannot emphasise enough the importance of including local Afghans in our reconstruction efforts. The more they participate, the more they take ownership and pride in rebuilding their country, which is shattered after years of warfare. A local villager no doubt views an attack by the Taliban on a school that he helped to build very differently than he would if that school had been exclusively built by western forces. However, reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan have to produce quick and tangible results for the people. Smaller projects that benefit a wider population in a shorter amount of time can have a more enduring effect than longer drawn-out projects that may indirectly benefit a large proportion of the population. In effect, the simple physiological needs of the Afghans have to be met by the international security assistance force or else the Taliban will fill the vacuum created by our inaction. That is especially true during the winter months when times get rough for many ordinary Afghans. Something as basic as food and water has to be provided before more ambitious projects can be launched.

I echo what I believe the Secretary of State said earlier: we need broadly to learn the lesson from Iraq that the military can create and hold space only for so long. The politicians and the non-governmental organisations need to fill that space. We cannot wait for a zero-risk environment to begin wholesale reconstruction. We must also deal with the rising internal tensions in Afghanistan resulting from what is seen as the endemic corruption within the Afghan Government, running all the way to the highest levels.

The whole country will welcome the fact that more of our troops are coming home from Iraq and no one will be more relieved than the families of the troops concerned. We in this party have never called for precipitate reductions or a timetable for withdrawal. We have to do what we believe to be right on the basis of the advice of our commanders on the ground. On that, we have always stood with the Government. In Iraq our overriding objectives should be to maximise the success of the mission that we set out to accomplish and to minimise the danger to our troops.

There are still a number of questions that need to be asked and answered. There are the ongoing questions about the safety of the British forces remaining in Iraq, particularly at Basra air station, the capabilities of the Iraqi security forces, the protection of the Iraqi-run border and the steps towards a political settlement, both internally and regionally. The Secretary of State dealt with some of those questions in his speech.

There remains one crucial question, however, that we need to ask today: now that our military forces are in an overwatch posture, can the Secretary of State or his Minister of State say under what circumstances they believe British troops would redeploy and intervene while conducting that role? Who would determine those criteria and who would take the decision? Would it be taken by the British Government and military alone or would it be a joint decision between Britain and Iraq? That is a very important question to which the Government have never provided a very clear answer, even though it lies at the heart of the entire overwatch question.

Some Members still seem to want a rapid and complete withdrawal from Iraq. In southern Iraq, a premature withdrawal—one without sustainable security architecture—could easily result in the escalation of the armed power struggle between the rival Shi’a militias. That would be likely to draw in the fledgling security structures. There would be the risk of further political destabilisation and a heightened threat to the Sunni population in south-east Iraq.

A timetable that was set out would also provide perverse incentives. It is particularly important that the Liberal Democrats start to justify exactly why they would be willing to take the risks of a timetable that is set out with the clarity that they seem to want. Afghanistan would also feel the chill wind of prematurely departing British troops, as known Iraqi fighters would be immediately given the signal to move their caravan on to Afghanistan if they chose to do so, believing that they had accomplished their goal of defeating the coalition forces in Iraq. It would be a terrible signal to send to the Taliban that violence could succeed in hastening the departure of coalition armed forces, and the last thing that we want to do is to further them in that belief and aim.

I am happy to agree with that part of the hon. Gentleman’s speech. He might find the answer to his question in a remark that was not reported but made by the now former leader of the Liberal Democrats at last week’s Prime Minister’s Question Time. He said in response to the Prime Minister at one stage during questioning him that the UK had sometime ago discharged its moral obligation to the people of Iraq. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we are in that very enhanced position?

It would be nice to think that we could talk about that in the past tense, but we gave a commitment to the people of Iraq that we would not leave until the job was done and we had produced a sustainable security situation within which a civil society could properly flourish. When that has been achieved, that will be the time for the international coalition to leave Iraq. Exactly when that will occur is a very difficult thing to assess, but anyone who believes that we have already reached that position does not fully understand the reality of what is happening on the ground in Iraq.

I agree, but can the hon. Gentleman envisage a situation where he would want to increase the British military presence in Iraq?

The Secretary of State is better placed to answer that than I am, but the experience so far is that we have had a successful handover to civilian authorities in Iraq, and the advice of our commanders has obviously been that they believe that, militarily, it was the appropriate time to do so. The fact that the level of violence has been containable and comparable with, if not lower than, that before the handover is testament to the correctness of that decision. It is very difficult to conceive of either the military or public opinion tolerating any increased deployment to Iraq, not least because of the overstretch in our forces, but it is fair for us to know under what circumstances we might redeploy the force that is there on overwatch and in what circumstances. That is reasonable, but the Minister might want to deal with that during his winding-up speech; I am sure that the House would like greater clarity on the issue. The incremental approach must be right, as long as we are getting progress in Iraq and can guarantee sufficient numbers for force protection. It is perfectly reasonable for the House to demand that of the Government.

We briefly mentioned Iran earlier. The whole House will be extremely concerned that it is now becoming clear that factory-grade and other weapons are increasingly going from Iran into both Iraq and Afghanistan. Those weapons include roadside bombs and rocket-propelled grenades capable of piercing armoured vehicles and killing our troops. Elements of the Iranian regime are therefore involved, and must understand that they are involved, in the attacking and killing of international forces that are upholding UN mandates. We need assurances from the Government that the Iraqi border in Iraq is sufficiently patrolled by coalition and Iraqi forces to minimise the risk of such weapons being used against our forces.

On the Iranian regime’s interference in Afghanistan, it has been reported that officers of the Iranian revolutionary guard are supplying weaponry to Taliban insurgents, reportedly including sophisticated SA-7 Strella anti-aircraft missiles—a serious threat to our helicopters. I would like the Minister of State to deal with that specific issue in his winding-up speech.

The real strategic question is whether Iran should be allowed to become a nuclear weapon state. I suggest to the House that there are three reasons why Iran should not be allowed to do so. The first is the nature of the regime itself. It has already been shown to be involved in destabilising Iraq and it is almost certainly involved in providing weapons to Afghanistan. We have heard the rhetoric from the leadership of the regime and we know what that could mean for the wider region.

Secondly, if Iran is allowed to become a nuclear weapon state, other countries will want to follow. We would be likely to see nuclear proliferation, which might affect Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria and other countries in the region, creating a destabilising, expensive and pointless nuclear arms race in one of the world’s most dangerous regions. Thirdly, we know, as the Secretary of State mentioned, that Iran has been more than capable of carrying out terrorism by proxy. What that could mean in terms of terrorist blackmail from a nuclear armed state is something that none of us would want to imagine.

I wholly agree with the hon. Gentleman in that I do not want Iran to develop a nuclear capacity, which is why I support the European efforts to keep up important negotiations. However, if the United States of America were to propose military strikes on Iran, would he encourage it to do so, or would he actively oppose that?

I understand and sympathise with the importance of the hon. Gentleman’s question, but if we get into the hypothetical debate of ruling things in or out at a time when we are involved in high-level, delicate negotiations with Iran, the only people we are likely to give comfort to are the Iranian regime. It has to be made clear that we do not want Iran to become a nuclear-weapon state. Iran is, indeed, signed up to the non-proliferation treaty, in which it pledges not to become a nuclear weapon state. The international community is taking the correct approach at the present time, and to rule anything out would be to weaken our hand in negotiations. I do not think that we should be any more specific than that.

I visited Iran a few weeks ago, and having been there and discussed the matter with Iranian politicians, I understood just how complex those negotiations can be and how difficult it can be to get across to some Iranian politicians that this is a quarrel not with the United States or the United Kingdom, but with the whole international community. The better that that community is able to speak with one voice—not splinter into what-ifs—the better our chance of getting a properly negotiated settlement in Iran that is to everyone’s benefit.

In the environment we currently face, one thing stands out above all else. In a truly global, interdependent economy, we have a far greater risk of exposure than in the past. Indeed, it has been said that today’s multi-polar world resembles the second half of the 19th century much more than it did at any time during the cold war years. That means we have to get the structures right. Our global economy is using political structures designed for the environment after the second world war, and military structures largely designed for the cold war.

The structure we need to get right the most is NATO; the Secretary of State touched on it in his speech. It has to be made clear to all NATO members that those who benefit from collective security are morally bound to a collective effort. Being part of NATO does not mean becoming involved in the conflicts or type of warfare that we like, and not the ones that we do not. There is a duty on all of those in the alliance to play a fair role, which means we have to bring an end to the fighting-funding link. People in this country already think it wrong that we in the UK play a disproportionate role in the military burden, along with the Americans and Canadians in the south of Afghanistan. The way in which NATO is funded means that we also carry a disproportionate level of the financial burden. The breaking of the fighting-funding link is necessary if NATO is to prosper and survive in what will be a threatening world.

The bottom line is this: the Government issued an extremely competent and widely supported strategic defence review, from which flowed several planning assumptions, yet they have exceeded them in all of the past six years. Our manpower has reduced but our commitments have increased. Defence has fallen as a proportion of GDP and of the Government’s overall expenditure, and the major procurement projects, which are widely supported by hon. Members of all parties—the carriers, the future rapid effect system and the joint strike fighter—are likely, without a change in the budgetary settlement, to mean cuts in other parts of the core budget. Our personnel exceed too widely the harmony guidelines and retention is a growing problem. Ten years into office, it is not a happy story for the Government to sell to the British public. It reflects badly on the Labour party and its priorities, but—worse—it badly lets down our armed forces. That is the real shame.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you got your retaliation in first, so I am constrained in the language that I may use in response to the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). To say that his speech was not the most encouraging, competent, wise or factual contribution is an understatement. Anyone who is neutral—I doubt whether any neutrals are present; there are not many Liberals, but even fewer neutrals—would be disappointed. I do not wish to be hostile, but if the official Opposition aspire to be the future Government, I fear that we are being short-changed. I must point out that a few delusional characters support the Tory party—they do not do well in court cases. Indeed, I am looking at some delusional characters now.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

No, let me first outline what I am going to say.

If the Opposition want to demonstrate that they are capable, they must show that they are different from the Conservative party that I have observed in my 34 years as a Member of Parliament, mostly in opposition. If one cannot get much from the future—from what might happen, according to the Opposition’s proposals—one is forced to revert to the past.

The Opposition’s past is even more dispiriting than their proposals for the future. One gains the impression from listening to the hon. Member for Woodspring that the Conservative party is the SAS of Opposition defence teams, confident in its abilities and its history. One would also believe that the Government were somehow the descendants of a semi-pacifist or pacifist Labour party led by Michael Foot, Tony Benn, Frank Allaun and Ramsay MacDonald, who ended up as a Conservative. Neither of those extremes is true.

The Government have been accused of all sorts of things, such as cutting defence expenditure. If the Opposition want to talk about cuts, they should consider the template under the Thatcher and Major Governments. Most of the increase in Government expenditure went on replacing kit lost during the war against Argentina. The previous Labour Government—Fred Mulley was Secretary of State—promised that we would commit ourselves to a 3 per cent. real increase in defence expenditure. Labour did that—the cut came under Michael Heseltine. If one looks at the chart of defence expenditure and what the Library has produced—I do not want to embroil the Library research department in a political argument—one sees that the statistics are clear. The picture of Tory defence expenditure, following a little spurt after the Falklands war, is: drop, drop, drop, drop, drop until the Defence Committee, then led by a wonderful Conservative Chairman, the late Michael Colvin, argued that Government expenditure was projected to fall to 2.2 per cent. Therefore, before too many rocks are thrown about any failings, I hope that the shadow Secretary of State will look at the many Defence Committee reports that were published during his party’s period in office.

Charges have been laid against the Government on Defence Medical Services, but just look at what the Defence Committee said about hospitals in “Defence Costs Study No. 15”. It said that the situation was appalling and that the cuts had gone so far that it doubted whether medical services would ever recover. That was a Tory-led Defence Committee.

The Tory-led Defence Committee said in 1996 that defence cuts had gone so far that if they proceeded in the same direction, the defence of the realm would be severely endangered. I advise the shadow Secretary of State to look at my A to Z of Tory procurement foul-ups—the word “foul-up” was suggested when my first word was deemed inadvisable by the Clerks. All I am saying is, yes, we have made mistakes, but, on balance, this is not the Labour party of the early 1980s. This Labour Government have behaved, if not impeccably and perfectly, then in a way that has defended this country’s interests well, and they will continue to do so. The hon. Member for Woodspring does neither himself nor his party any good by imagining that we are a party of extremist troglodytes who have somehow found their way into office and are now doing their best to undermine the security of the state and the welfare of our armed forces.

I am interested in these lessons in the history of expenditure, but when did we last find ourselves fighting a war on two fronts while our defence expenditure, including the Treasury reserve element, was falling as a proportion of GDP and Government expenditure?

We fought a war on two fronts against Nazi Germany and imperial Japan. We almost lost that, as a consequence of the Conservative party’s leaders in the 1930s, so I will not take any spurious examples of our failing this country, when it was the hon. Gentleman’s party, with names that he—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman can look contemptuously if he wants. He might not remember Stanley Baldwin or Neville Chamberlain, but he can read. They were the Prime Ministers who almost brought our country to the point of destruction. That is why I am not prepared to accept the trivia and, not the distortion, but the misinterpretation of facts that I have heard and am likely to hear over the next two or three years.

As a historian, what does the right hon. Gentleman make of the fact that the proportion of GDP that we are spending on defence this year is the lowest since 1930?

The shadow Secretary of State will have noticed that the GDP of this country has grown quite significantly since his party has been in opposition, although I am not going to deliver a eulogy on the Prime Minister when he was Chancellor. Therefore, if we look not simply at the percentage of GDP but at the amount spent on defence, we realise that the figure is favourable. This will give a crumb of comfort to the Opposition and cause the Minister to look threateningly at me, as he has previously, but I believe that we should spend more on defence. I really do. Not simply more money—

They do not know how much.

We do not know how much the Opposition are going to spend on defence. They are copying the Labour party. We did not invent identity theft or perfect it. I recall, however, that the Labour party’s strategic defence review idea was not just to ease the transition to sanity in the Labour ranks but to buy a little time to get its defence policies together. David Clark, for example, was one of a number of people in the Opposition team who brought the Labour party back from the brink of fantasy—this was partly how we got re-elected—and showed that we were and are a responsible party.

My right hon. Friend says that we do not know how much the main Opposition party will spend on defence. There is a clue, however, in the address by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) to the Conservative party’s annual conference. He promised to restore the three infantry battalions cut by Labour

“once we have seen the MoD’s books and identified the savings to pay for them. A bigger Army for a safer Britain.”

Therefore, he will fund that expansion from other areas of MOD expenditure. There will be no net increase in expenditure.

I do not need to be revived, but I would like to advise the hon. Member for Woodspring, and I will send him a copy of my book on how the Staffordshire Regiment survived amalgamation—it was amalgamated in the end, but at least it survived a decade longer. It was going to be amalgamated, as were many other regiments, by a range of Ministers, some of whom I have seen popping into the Chamber in the past couple of days.

The right hon. Gentleman has considerable experience in the House, whereas I am a relatively new Member of Parliament. Will he therefore advise me on how to operate, as a Member who feels passionately about defence issues, when former Army colleagues and constituents tell me what is going on? We try to probe the Government on issues, but we are then accused, as one of my hon. Friends was, of talking down our armed services or armed services medical support. In what way are we supposed to hold the Government to account on such important issues?

It would be improper of me to offer advice, but the hon. Gentleman should read a book, sit in on debates and keep his mouth shut until he has had ample time to make a proper contribution. I will willingly coach him as best I can, and tell him when he is ready to launch a speech on the House of Commons. I will ask him to read my book on what his Government tried to do to the Staffordshire Regiment. It is important to talk to people in the military, for whom I have the deepest respect—I would never call them congenital whingers, because they are not. They say many things that can be picked up by Members of Parliament and used, as I have done many times over the years. One must not necessarily treat a snippet of information, however, as the end of the line for research. It is incumbent on all of us who have not been doctors—if we enter a profession that has any pretensions to scientific analysis, competence and verification, to take a different approach—to be more serious about it. We should not throw away our lessons and, if someone drops us a titbit of information, rush in with a speech in the House of Commons.

Many members of Her Majesty’s armed forces will recognise the improvement in salaries. The shadow Minister, however, told us how badly a major is paid—using, no doubt, the bottom of a major’s salary scale. I would like to be at the top of a major’s salary scale—Members of Parliament would have a considerable increase in salary if we were—but, in saying that, I in no way disparage the armed forces. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) looks at the armed forces review report, he will see the salary structures. He is a good friend, even though he is a Conservative—many of my good friends are—but a major’s salary at the top of the scale is not bad at all.

My right hon. Friend has spoken of snippets and titbits of information. He might be interested to know of one such piece of information that I picked up earlier in the year when I visited Basra, and enjoyed meeting members of the Staffords, who were serving there among other units. An “other ranks” told me that the kit in which he was dressed was the best equipment with which he had been issued for 13 years.

I hope that my hon. Friend will say more about that if he decides to speak this evening.

We should consider the shabby kit that our armed forces had in 1991. The world’s worst tank was imposed on them—Challenger 1. I should like to engage in debate with anyone who disputes that, although Challenger 2 is one of the best tanks, if not the best.

The Tories’ record on procurement was a little unsatisfactory. We are now hearing about the Government’s procurement failures: the Eurofighter, the future rapid effect system, Trident, the joint strike fighter and two real aircraft carriers. When the Tories were in office, they tried to sell off one of our three little aircraft carriers to the Australians, and we had to beg them to give it back. Now, we have two serviceable aircraft carriers—which I think is wrong: I think we need three—until the proper ones come along. Ours has been a pretty impressive procurement programme, given the amount of money and what it has purchased.

I have looked at the National Audit Office’s press report, “Major Projects Report 1997”. Sir John Bourn had a bit of trouble recently, but I think he has done a superb job, and that the National Audit Office is one of the most professional audit offices in the world. In the report, which reflected the position on 31 March 1997, he said that

“the overall cost variance for the 20 projects common to the 1996 and 1997 Major Projects Reports has increased by £341 million”,

and spoke of

“the average delay to in-Service dates of just over three years (37 months)”.

That is not an impressive figure. At the end of a period of Tory rule, that report was describing the Tories as pretty profligate and incapable of running the defence procurement process successfully. That is why I feel a little unhappy.

We hear endlessly about defence housing. I can think of three Members who are present, on the Conservative Benches alone, who will remember Portillo giving away vital defence housing—for a sum that was subsequently lost in the Tory budget—to the Nomura Corporation masquerading as Mannington Homes. That disaster featured in four Defence Committee reports, all of which were critical.

I shall read the hon. Member for Woodspring’s speech very carefully. I shall consider his criticisms of Labour’s expenditure, medical service provision, housing and equipment, and try to decide whether his speech provides any inspiration or satisfaction—whether it gives any indication that a new Tory Government, if there ever is one, will be any better than the last. On the basis of what I have heard today, I believe that a new Tory Government would not be any better, and indeed could be much worse.

During the last Parliament I served on the Defence Committee under my right hon. Friend’s—

Wise leadership!

Under his wise leadership and chairmanship. The Committee produced a report on the Bill that became the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Act 2004. Although our report was quite critical of some of what the Ministry of Defence was doing, including cash limiting, we recognised that for the first time ever a Labour Government were introducing lump-sum payments for members of our armed forces. Not once during the process did Conservative Front-Benchers raise any objections.

I am not sure whether to thank my hon. Friend for what he has said, as he is only half proud of what we did. One thing that we did was appoint better advisers than the MOD’s, and we gave the MOD a rough time. However, we recognised that much had happened with compensation and other forms of benefit.

Much has been done, but more remains to be done. We can never be absolutely happy until members of our armed forces who have been injured are properly compensated, regardless of whether they were injured while facing the enemy, in peacetime operations or while serving at home; we owe them a debt of honour. They must be properly compensated not only so that we can be happier about that and our consciences can be clearer, but so that more people will be prepared to join the armed forces.

We must examine how our defence forces are evolving, the equipment we are purchasing, the training we are doing, the alliances of which we are a part, and whether our Government are displaying political wisdom in respect of our allies and potential adversaries—we hope that they are. In doing so, we must move beyond the immediate future. I recall Ministers such as Archie Hamilton—a great guy—coming before the Defence Committee, and our saying, “Minister, you are thinking about the fact that the Soviet Union has now collapsed, but is the threat to the UK over? Why are you rushing to cut regiments? Why are you cutting defence expenditure? History teaches us that, regrettably, war is sometimes inevitable.”

Correct me if my memory is inaccurate, but did not the Labour Front-Bench team at the time want a bigger cut—a bigger peace dividend—than the Government were offering?