On Trident, the report recommended that the future of the UK’s nuclear deterrent should be considered in a Strategic Security Review that should be carried out by the Government. In the interim, the government should allow for maximum flexibility in its policy in order to be able to carry out the Strategic Security Review’s recommendations. Flexibility would be facilitated by extending the life of the Vanguard submarine hulls so that the Strategic Security Review is able to implement all options, including recommendations which do not involve Trident. This, in turn, would demonstrate the UK’s commitment to an eventual nuclear-free world, which would eventually mean relinquishing our own nuclear deterrent.

Given the importance of states working together towards the eventual abolition of nuclear weapons, this would be an important confidence-building measure for the international community, including North Korea and Iran. Furthermore, the report urges the UK to strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and push members of the NPT to sign the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Additional Protocol and for this to be mandatory by the 2010 NPT Conference. Given the dangers of nuclear proliferation and terrorism, this should be a priority for the UK.

The overarching theme of the report is based on the premise that the rise of globalisation – in which many of our national and regional issues are globally interconnected – is something we have to embrace in our security and defence policy. The report urges the UK not only to maintain our commitment to NATO and the US, but also to encourage greater defence cooperation with European countries to complement.

The report raises many important issues for the UK’s national security and makes many apt recomendations, the question is whether the Government will listen to these? Will the Government finally commission a Strategic Defence Review to look into the options regarding our nuclear deterrent?

Events like the Armed Forces Day are incredibly important and serve to remind the British people of the dedication and bravery of our armed forces and their achievements from World War I to more recently, in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Armed Forces Day gives us an opportunity to show our appreciation to our servicemen and women for their sacrifices and achievements. And yet, despite our armed forces upholding their half of the military covenant commendably, the Government routinely fails to provide our servicemen and veterans with adequate welfare and equipment provisions. Our troops are overstretched - they do not have the helicopters and armoured vehicles urgently required, and replacements for the insufficiently armoured Snatch Land Rovers have been slow. Housing for servicemen and their families is woefully inadequate, and Government provisions to support the physical and mental wellbeing of our servicemen are greatly overstretched and in need of pressing attention.

Not only is the Government failing to provide our troops with adequate support in terms of health and equipment, our forces are denied the strategic direction they so desperately need both in Afghanistan and also more broadly. A Strategic Defence Review urgently needs to be commissioned in order that our troops have the right support and equipment and that this support is in sufficient supply.

But what does the public think?

• Are they satisfied with the celebrations for Armed Forces Day 2009?
• Do they think the Government adequately support our troops?
• What is the most pressing concern for our armed forces today?

Sadly it is our servicemen and women who are paying the price of the Government’s slow response to this problem. It came as little surprise, then, that the families of four servicemen killed in Snatch Land Rovers in Iraq in Afghanistan, are now suing the Ministry of Defence, as they believe their deaths came as a result of the lack of protection they received in the Snatch vehicles, and thus their deaths were preventable if they had been in a more heavily armored vehicle.

The Minister for Defence Procurement, Lord Drayson, claims there is a tradeoff between protection and mobility, but is this a tradeoff worth taking? Surely our troops deserve to be given the equipment and support they need in order to be adequately protected?

“Time and again, representatives of the government have said that the veterans must wait for compensation since science does not establish a link.

“Yet, when that science does finally become available, the MoD now says that all these claims are far too late.

“This is to be contrasted not only with the UK government’s previous attitude where lateness has never been raised, but also with the attitude of many governments around the world who have set up schemes to compensate and are still compensating their veterans as the veterans fall ill.”

So what do the public think?

• Do nuclear test veterans have a right to compensation for illnesses and diseases occurring in later life?
• Has the High Court ruling come too late, given that the cause of nuclear test veteran’s illnesses goes back to the 1950s?
• Is the Government’s response to claims justifiable given how much debt the country is in, or do we not have a moral duty to uphold our responsibilities under our ‘duty of care’ to our armed forces regardless of the cost?

“I am absolutely thrilled that the Gurkhas have finally been given justice.
 
“This is a great victory for the Gurkhas and for everyone who has campaigned on their behalf.

“Gordon Brown has finally woken up to the principle that people across Britain understand instinctively: if someone is prepared to die for this country, they must be allowed to live in it.

“Tragically this decision will come too late for many of those brave Gurkhas who have been waiting so long to see justice done.

“Gordon Brown’s claim of a ‘moral compass’ rings hollow when, on every issue from Gurkhas to expenses, he has to be dragged every inch of the way towards doing the right thing.”

“These aircraft are unnecessary Cold War relics. The Government has put Britain in a position where we are being forced to throw money at this massively expensive project while our troops on the front line are crying out for the helicopters and armoured vehicles they desperately need.

“Ministers have a duty to extract Britain from this deal with minimal damage to the public finances.

“It will be a further humiliation for this country if we are forced into flogging these aircraft to the Saudi regime in order to make ends meet. Gordon Brown must never forget the massive damage done to Britain’s reputation by allegations of corruption in previous arms deals with Saudi Arabia.”

However I believe that there are still a number of significant questions which remain unanswered about the events at Deepcut barracks. 
 
These issues have not gone away, and will not go away until we have had a full public inquiry into what happened.

The Government must stop dragging its feet and take action to ensure we get to the bottom of these tragic events.

“This is a historic victory for the Gurkhas who have served our country so bravely.

“This Government has now lost its moral authority. From the first moment I challenged Gordon Brown on this over a year ago, he didn’t understand that there was a simple moral principle at stake.

“People who are willing to die for our country, should be allowed to live in our country.

“The Government must listen to Parliament and scrap these shameful rules immediately and grant justice without conditions to all retired Gurkhas.”

Further Information

1. The Liberal Democrat motion on which the Government was defeated is copied below:

Gurkha Settlement Rights

Mr Nick Clegg
Mr Vince Cable
Mr Chris Huhne
Mr Nick Harvey
Mr David Heath
Mr Paul Burstow

That this House regrets the Government’s recent statement outlining the eligibility criteria for Gurkhas to reside in the United Kingdom; recognises the contribution the Gurkhas have made to the safety and freedom of the United Kingdom for the past 200 years; notes that more Gurkhas have laid down their lives for the United Kingdom than are estimated to want to live here; believes that Gurkhas who retired before 1997 should be treated fairly and in the same way as those who have retired since; is concerned that the Government’s new guidelines will permit only a small minority of Gurkhas and their families to settle whilst preventing the vast majority; further believes that people who are prepared to fight and die for the United Kingdom should be entitled to live here; and calls upon the Government to withdraw its new guidelines immediately and bring forward revised proposals that extend an equal right of residence to all Gurkhas.

2. On 19 March 2008, Nick Clegg raised the issue in Prime Minister’s Questions:

Mr. Nick Clegg (Sheffield, Hallam) (LD): Two hours ago a retired Gurkha soldier handed over this medal to me in protest at the Government’s refusal to grant him British citizenship. Does the Prime Minister know what it means for a loyal British soldier to give up a medal that he won for his long years of service to this country? Can he explain to the Gurkhas why on earth he believes that Gurkhas who have served in the Army after 1997 are worthy of British citizenship, but those who served before that date should be deported?

The Prime Minister: Let me also pay tribute to the Gurkhas. They have been in existence since 1815. They have served loyally in every part of the world, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan, where they fought with Prince Harry over the past few months. They have done a tremendous job for our country. We are the first Government to have given Gurkhas the right to a pension, for those serving after 1997. We are the first to have given equal pay to the Gurkhas. We are the first to have dealt with the problems of married accommodation, and we are the first to say that after four years in the Army they will have the right to residence in this country. Those are changes that we have brought about. Why is the date 1997? It is the date that the Gurkhas, once based in Hong Kong, moved to be based in Britain. That is why we are honouring the promises that we made for the period after 1997.

Mr. Clegg: That is a technical argument on a moral issue. It is a spectacular misjudgement from the man who signed the cheques for the Iraq war, but has never had the moral courage to take responsibility for it.

Commenting, Liberal Democrat Shadow Defence Secretary, Nick Harvey said:

“Our reserves are working at twice the level they were before the invasion of Iraq. The minister is fooling no one when he claims that reserves are not being used to plug gaps in our overstretched full-time forces.

“The simple fact is that this Government’s disastrous decisions have massively overstretched our Armed Forces. The future of the reserves must be driven by what is best for them and for the Armed Forces.

“While there is a need for modernisation of our reserve forces, any cut in numbers could be like a slap in the face considering the massive contribution they have made.”

 The cost to Britain has been tremendous; billions have been spent, 179 British troops have died and many more have been injured.

 By 31 May, most of Britain’s 4,100 troops will have left. There can be no doubting the professionalism, sacrifice and bravery of our troops but with six years hindsight, was it a fight worth fighting?

• Is Basra in particular and Iraq in general a better place for the invasion and Britain’s contribution? 
•  Has the only thing that has matched the bravery of our troops been the incompetence of our politicians? 
• What should have been done differently and what lessons can be learned? 
  What future for Iraq now?