clear, is about priorities. If the United Kingdom can afford to spend 119 billion protecting the health of its citizens, it can afford to spend a lot more than 38 billion protecting the lives of its soldiers. But is there the will? I reject Mr Brown's claim that the war in Afghanistan is being waged "to prevent terror coming to the streets of Britain". If that distant country were cleared of al- Qaeda and Taleban fighters tomorrow, Britain would still harbour many home-grown threats. Three of the London Underground bombers came from Leeds; one of the Glasgow Airport attackers was born in Aylesbury. What's more, al-Qaeda has plenty of options beyond Afghanistan, including Somalia and Yemen. Are they next for the Welsh Guards? But even if I am wrong, and the bloody grind in Helmand is worth the terrible price we are paying, it is unthinkable for the mission to be run on the economics of Aldi. Defence is not like transport or housing. In a theatre of war, pinched pennies cost lives. If British forces are to be deployed as global policemen, they must not be undermined by Treasury bean counters, determined to put the brake on the state's runaway debts. The death of even one British soldier through lack of proper funding is a cause of national disgrace. Ministers responsible should be ashamed of themselves. How Mr Brown can tell the Commons that recent losses had nothing to do with a lack of helicopters -- and still sleep