The influential think-tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) today published a report on the UK’s defence policy, which has made several recommendations which the Liberal Democrats have been calling for in recent years, particularly with regard to Trident. The report, Shared Responsibilities: A National Security Strategy for the United Kingdom, has recommended that the Government commission a Strategic Defence Review, which the Liberal Democrats have been pressing Government for many years on.

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?

The 27th June 2009 marked an important date as Armed Forces Day, serving to honour our servicemen and women and veterans who have made and continue to make huge sacrifices for their country. The first of its kind in the UK, the Armed Forces Day main event was staged at the historic Dockyard Chatham, Kent, where there were military and veterans parades, and military bands and displays; hundreds of other events were held in towns and cities throughout the UK.

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?

Given the importance of protecting our troops and ensuring they are given the right equipment for their welfare and safety, the Government needs to move more swiftly to address concerns regarding the amount of protection Snatch Land Rovers provide servicemen. Snatch Land Rovers have come under criticism for being lightly armed and insufficient in protecting soldiers from mines or improvised explosive devices (IEDs) relative to their US counterparts who have been using vehicles such as the RG-31.

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?

Following a recent High Court ruling allowing ex-servicemen who took part in nuclear tests in the 1950s to sue the Government for damages, it is expected that the Government will soon be faced with a large class action suit. Despite other countries that exposed their ex-servicemen to nuclear testing having long since compensated those who became ill, the MoD continues to drag its feet and is now arguing that claims have come too long after the event. Benjamin Browne QC, representing 1000 ex-servicemen, has argued that:

“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?

As British troops handed Basra over to American control at the end of March, we were left to reflect on just what has been achieved by the six years of British control. A fledgling democracy has been established and there is no doubt that Basra’s Shia population are glad to no longer be under Saddam’s iron fist. However, worries remain. Basra is still impoverished and in desperate need of essential services such as electricity, water and sewage treatment. Since the height of the insurgency, the security situation has doubtless improved and violence has decreased sharply throughout Southern Iraq; but the fact that the American military will move into the void left by the British departure casts a shadow over claims by Downing Street and Whitehall that the job has been done. Read more »

The news that the annual cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan increased by more than 50% this year to £4.5billion has put even more pressure on an already stretched defence budget.

Belated investment in acceptable accommodation for troops and their families, the procurement of expensive new weapons systems and equipment projects - including aircraft carriers, destroyers, submarines and fast jets - combined with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, have put the budget under severe strain. Despite all the money being spent, British troops are still chronically overstretched and lack vital equipment such as helicopters. Read more »