| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 101
8.40 pmMr. Bruce George (Walsall, South) : I have been listening almost as a bystander in the debate between Government Back-Benchers and Ministers. It has been almost a case of the poll tax revisited. The Government will have a lot of trouble on their hands dealing with the legitimate aspirations of the supporters of county regiments. I wonder whether it is right to concede the argument automatically that Army numbers should be reduced, and therefore to fight over the bones that are left "My regiment before that of anyone else."
One of the strongest cases made so far was that advanced by the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) who argued conclusively that we will not be able to discharge our military obligations in wartime if the Army is reduced to the level proposed by the Government. I may add that we will be unable to discharge our peacetime obligations with the numbers that the Government envisage. That is the crux of the matter.
One is usually embarrassed about repeating cliches, but that used by the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) deserves to be repeated time and time again. I refer to her remark that the peace dividend is peace itself. Since 1970, whatever Government have been in office, defence expenditure has fallen, by a total of 19.2 per cent., and manpower by 33.4 per cent. One may concede that in 1970 we were overdefended or overcommitted, but one wonders how far one can go before reaching bottom.
Unless the Government are prepared to abandon Britain's commitments, which would be difficult, the Army and the armed forces of the future will be so overstretched that they will be a paper Army, Navy and Air Force. Last July, I asked the Secretary of State how, if the Royal Navy could not discharge its obligations with a force of "about 50 frigates and destroyers, it would do so with about 40"--and we know that the figure will really be 34 or 35. The same applies in respect of the Army.
Over the years, we have made the decision to have one of the smallest armies in NATO. A United States report on allied contributions to common defence published in May 1991 shows that, in terms of active duty, military and civilian manpower, and committed reserves in NATO and Japan, as a percentage of total population, Britain comes twelfth. It is clear to me, as it must be to anyone, that our armed forces, having been at a high level in 1970, have fallen to a level below which it will be difficult to sustain Britain's future military defence.
The threat today is not that which existed two or three years ago, for it has moved much farther east. While I am delighted by the actions of President Gorbachev, I refer the House to a paper by a Soviet general who has not been made redundant by today's abandonment of the Warsaw pact-- General Lobov, a senior member of his country's General Staff. He reported that the Soviet military was being disadvantaged by the conventional forces in Europe treaty and suggested several solutions--and I am sure that he was writing not as an isolated member of the Soviet General Staff but on its behalf. General Lobov's prescription is to improve combat training ; effect the transition to a contract system--that is, professionalisation--for manning ; maintain headquarters and war time strength in peace time ; search for new forms of co-operation on defence issues with the armies of former allies ; and improve mobilisation capacity under the new economic conditions.
Column 102
General Lobov also calls for a rapid reaction force based east of the Urals--that is, outside the CFE treaty area. He cites the United States' rapid deployment force, numbering 444,000, as an example. He also argues for a blue water navy capable of interdicting allied reinforcement. I know General Lobov very well--he does not hide his views--and I suggest that we need to be a little cautious about developments in the Soviet Union.Perhaps a few years from now, the situation will be beyond doubt. President Gorbachev may have control over the military, and the CFE, START 1, and START 2 treaties, and others, may have been implemented. If so, we will be able to perceive with certainty that our forces need not be kept at their present level--or even at that now envisaged by the Government. However, I suggest that that time has not yet come. When it does, I will acknowledge it--and hope that everyone else will.
It is a pleasure to speak in any defence debate, and particularly so now, because my views roughly correspond with those of my party. Having listened to the robust speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), and in anticipating the future, I speak with a great deal of pleasure about what has been happening. I listened with pleasure, too, when right hon. and hon. Members strongly defended our armed forces--unlike in many previous debates in the House. It is ironic that the Minister of State's criticism of Labour's nuclear policy is that we are considering cancelling Trident SSBN 08. At one time, we were criticised for our intention to cancel SSBN 05, 06, and 07.
It is legitimate to argue, bearing in mind strategic arms reductions, that three submarines will be feasible. I fully acknowledge that four may be desirable, in case a disaster befalls one of them. However, it may be that by the time the flotilla is at sea, there will be greater co-operation with our French allies, and that the need for many submarines from European nuclear powers to be at sea simultaneously will prove unnecessary. We heard this afternoon that the Navy is cancelling only one submarine, and we must be thankful that it is only one.
Although the threat has changed, it has not been eliminated, and the euphoric response that followed developments in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union has been put on ice. Some people fondly imagined--and still imagine--that armed forces have become superfluous. Some argue even now that our security requirements will be encompassed and satisfied by some new world order, the United Nations, the CSCE process, and, more implausibly, the European Community. However, we will not be able to meet our full security requirements unless we maintain a high commitment in the future, as we have in the past, to NATO.
That is not just because that commitment will prevent unilateralism--and I do not use that word in the old sense--or because, if there were any so- called EC alternative, to do otherwise might sever the link between Europe and North America--which would be a catastrophe in every sense of the word. It is because those who aspire to a European defence order now are being somewhat premature, by at least a decade.
The year 1991 has been seen as critical for NATO. How will NATO be able to agree and to implement a new political and military strategy in response to an environment in Europe characterised by both positive and negative phenomena? The way in which NATO has adapted, even before the London declaration, has been
Column 103
quite incredible. It has shown relevance and that it is not prepared to wither away in empathy with the decline of the Warsaw pact NATO is relevant, easy to justify and is not merely wanted by most EC countries ; its existence is earnestly desired by many of our former adversaries in eastern Europe, who certainly knew that its existence underpinned their security.The second critical issue for 1991 will be whether the historic process-- building down the east-west military confrontation--continues or whether there will be any major setbacks.
The third major area of concern in 1991 involves what lessons Europe will draw from its mixed experience during the Gulf crisis. In my humble view, that experience would not lead one to the conclusion that NATO will be supplanted by the EC.
8.50 pm
Sir Jim Spicer (Dorset, West) : I look back upon a regimental career which started in the East Surrey Regiment and continued in the Royal Fusiliers, the 43rd--the Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Light Infantry-- the King's African Rifles, and ended in the Parachute Regiment. If I embarked upon special pleading tonight, I could go on for quite some time, but I would not include the King's African Rifles.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State is absolutely right to set parameters for the reduction especially in the infantry and to leave it to the professionals to decide, but then he has to make the final decision. I cannot understand why any hon. Member on either side of the House should object to that. The last thing that I want is to see politicians making the initial decisions. Let the professionals do it ; that is what they are paid for, and for which they have the expert knowledge.
I take issue with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and other Ministers over the levels set, especially for the infantry. It is not merely the Queen's or Scottish divisions which are worried ; every soldier I talk to believes that we are cutting our infantry far too hard and fast. I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) in saying that 38 battalions would be much nearer the mark. The Minister would have given his professionals a much easier task if he had given that figure.
There is no doubt that the British infantry is of the finest quality in the world. It is part of our material for war, but such quality cannot be achieved overnight. It can be achieved with machines. One can stop a tank production line, press a button and start the line producing again. However, once one loses quality manpower one is left high and dry because it will take at least a year to begin retraining, and I doubt whether one could do so even then.
The quality of our infantry and the special quality of our airborne soldiers has been recognised and respected world wide. Without that quality, the Falklands campaign would have failed. There would have been no Goose Green and no Darwin. Without that quality, we could not have played such a magnificent part in the Iraqi campaign. The Royal Fusiliers were there in strength and played their part very well indeed. Without that quality, we certainly would not have been allocated the prime task that we have been given within the rapid reaction force. Every hon. Member can be proud of that role.
Column 104
My message is that the cuts are too deep and are in the wrong place. That case was argued very well by John Keegan in an article in The Daily Telegraph today which many hon. Members may have seen. He says that an infantry battalion costs about £15 million a year, in round figures. I hope that the review of the other arms of the service bears that figure in mind. In the article, he mentions that the intelligence corps has 1,600 soldiers and exists"to interrogate enemy prisoners and to exercise field security' in time of European war."
Let us have a good hard look at that. A hard look, too, at the education corps--never my favourite--might provide us with another battalion. The chaplains' department must cost another £15 million : and then there are 200 dentists and 700 doctors--one to every 220 soldiers in the Army. That is where the cuts must be made first and foremost. Leave our infantry battalions alone where that is possible and let them remain at full strength. The infantry must hold pride of place in the Army of the future and I am delighted to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) in his place because I know that he will support me in that argument.
If there are to be reductions they must never be on the basis of shared misery. That is no way to retain the quality of which we are so proud. Quality is the key, and we must ensure that it is kept both within a reduced regular infantry strength and within the Territorial Army which will still have a vital role to play.
Many hon. Members have been kind tonight to mention the territorial battalions of airborne forces--for example, the fourth battalion of the Parachute Regiment, which is a TA battalion. I must also mention the 15th battalion in Scotland, another magnificent battalion. Not one of the soldiers who are so happy to be recruited into the 15th battalion would look at any other TA battalion. They want to be airborne soldiers and we can say goodbye to them if we do not keep them as airborne soldiers. Then all that quality will disappear. When considering quality and our regular Army, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham said, there cannot be any cut in the strength of the Parachute Regiment, the brigade headquarters and its supporting arms within fifth Airborne Brigade.
I also worry about the provisions of the right sort of training for a specialist force such as the Parachute Regiment. In his opening speech, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said that they would move junior regiments from Aldershot and that there would be amalgamation. One cannot amalgamate junior soldiers in the Parachute Regiment or parachute soldiers in training with ordinary infantry. I am not being unkind to the infantry, but that would be a desperate waste of money because they would start at one level of training and then move to a much higher standard.
Proper provision for the right sort of training for airborne soldiers is crucial. I will not say that the Parachute Regiment and the Royal Marines are the key to the future of our ground forces, but they both have a crucial role. In general, I am a great supporter of the Royal Marines. We need an undertaking, however, that there will be no difference between the training given to the Royal Marines and that provided for airborne forces. We must also look carefully at the establishment levels of the Royal Marines, which are enormous in comparison with that of our Airborne Brigade.
Column 105
Everyone has, of course, made it clear that special pleading is not the order of the day, but, if we are to maintain quality, that exemplary regiment, the Devon and Dorsets--with its fine recruiting record--must surely be retained. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister will agree. If anything happens to that regiment, there will be the devil to pay.There is still time to think again. At the very least, we should consider retaining between 38 and 40 battalions rather than the 34 that are now envisaged. If cuts must be made, let them be made "at the back end". Let me finish on a lighthearted note : that might even leave room, at last, for a decent gymnasium in the Ministry of Defence.
Several Hon. Members rose--
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : Order. We have half an hour before the winding-up speeches are expected to begin. It will be evident that many hon. Members still wish to speak. I hope that speeches will continue to be short.
9 pm
Mr. John Cartwright (Woolwich) : Let me start with a few brief words about my constituency.
Woolwich has been a military town since Henry VIII set up his dockyard there in 1515. The Woolwich arsenal was established in 1671, and Woolwich has been the cradle of the Royal Artillery ever since, having maintained a close involvement with it since its formation in 1716.
Since the Royal Ordnance factory closed in 1967, the main employer on the Woolwich arsenal site has been the Directorate-General of Defence Quality Assurance, which was referred to earlier. Throughout the 1970s, the directorate was beset with uncertainty about the possible dispersal of its work away from London.
In the early 1980s, money, time and effort were invested in planning the reorganisation of the arsenal site : that included the investment of £300,000 in the design of a new quality assurance headquarters. On 12 April 1984, the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee), then Parliamentary Under- Secretary of State for Defence Procurement, wrote to reassure me about the future of the arsenal. The letter said that
"in the foreseeable future"
a move
"would be very expensive. It, therefore, looks as if there will be a QA presence at Woolwich for a very long time."
Less than five years later, another Minister who had done a different set of sums decided that it made financial sense to move quality assurance from Woolwich to Teesside. Since then, that decision has been subjected to scrutiny ; now no one seems to know where the directorate will end up. We are expecting people to do their work with uncertainty hanging over them year after year. It is about time that the MOD made a firm decision about where quality assurance will finally lay its weary head.
The people of Woolwich had, I think, come to terms with the loss of the arsenal from 1993 onwards ; but, in the past few weeks, we have read stories in the press about the transfer of the Royal Artillery from Woolwich to Larkhill. The Minister of State for the Armed Forces assures me that no decisions have been made ; I note, however, that if the RA left Woolwich, that would mark the end of nearly 500 years of service to the armed forces on the part of the local people.
Column 106
I am not indulging in a special pleading. I accept that we cannot live in the past ; I realise that our armed forces must be organised in a cost-effective way. But, as the forces become smaller, many communities throughout the country will find that historic and military links are suddenly severed. I hope that the Government will recognise the resulting problems, and will handle them with sympathy and sensitivity.The Select Committee reported on the multiple-launch rocket system in March, and the Government replied in May. MLRS was deployed to great effect in the Gulf : we all saw pictures on television showing its awesome fire power as the salvoes of rockets were launched. Later, we heard of the shattering effect of those rockets on the morale of the Iraqi troops as each delivered 644 anti-personnel bomblets on the target.
We should recognise that the Army was lucky that MLRS was available in time. The decision--made in 1985 that it should be built on a collaborative basis in Europe, rather than being purchased from the United States, led to a four-year deferment of the in-service date. Our report recognised--and the Government's reply emphasised these factors--that European production would bring some £300 million worth of work to United Kingdom companies, and would introduce a second source of supply. As our report observed, however,
"These benefits have to be weighed against the disadvantage of the four- year delay in the in-service date."
Without MLRS, the effectiveness of the British Army in the Gulf would have been much reduced.
Three versions of MLRS are in production or under development. When the Select Committee reported, the MOD was uncertain about its requirement for all of them. I am glad that the Government have decided that they require sufficient MLRS1 launchers and ammunition to supply three regiments, as envisaged in the earlier plans. We said in our report that the completion of the review of our requirement for MLRS2 rockets was urgent. I therefore welcome the Minister's announcement this afternoon.
MLRS3, the anti-tank munition, is at an earlier stage of development. It is progressing well and we are pleased that the MOD has learnt several lessons from the first two versions. The greatest threat so far has been doubt about the United States' commitment to the project. The Defence Select Committee wrote in April to the chairman of the Senate's appropriation sub- committee and the Senate subsequently approved the funds. Its chairman assured us that our letter had been a crucial factor in reaching that decision. I am sure that he wrote the same to everybody else who approached him. The Phoenix remotely piloted vehicle is intended to assist the location of targets for MLRS and other artillery. Phoenix has been severely delayed for 32 months by development problems, which, thankfully, have been overcome. The difference is that MLRS just made it to the Gulf but Phoenix did not. That was an enormous pity because Phoenix would have been of much assistance to our artillery. We look forward to introduction into service soon.
Our report on the attack helicopter, which has been published today, recognises that the MOD is right to abandon its attempt to combine the attack helicopter and the armed reconnaissance helicopter roles. The collaborative land attack helicopter project, which cost the MOD no more than £3.5 million, proved that that involved too
Column 107
many compromises. The MOD is rightly concentrating on preparing the staff requirement for the attack helicopter, which will be purchased off the shelf from abroad. The Defence Select Committee has always doubted whether the United Kingdom's requirement needed to be met by a new development programme.Today's report also covers the third-generation anti-tank guided weapons systems that are being developed collaboratively, mainly with Germany and France. We are concerned about the length of time that is being taken to develop those systems. The medium-range, man-portable version is taking eight years, while the helicopter vehicle-mounted, long-range version is a 10-year programme. The Committee concludes : "The TRIGAT weapons systems are undoubtedly technically quite advanced, but we doubt whether the complexity of the task justifies such lengthy periods of development."
We are concerned that the MOD has yet to decide which attack helicopter or land vehicle it will procure. These decisions are important to TRIGAT's development progress and must not be delayed much longer. The choice of an attack helicopter and its principal anti-armour weapon will be crucial for the Army's strength in the decade ahead.
Faced with dramatic changes in Europe and the need to scale down the size of Britain's forces, the Government could have decided to abandon some military capability and to opt for a policy of role specialisation with our European allies. That would have meant depending on our allies to perform tasks that the British forces had previously done for themselves. The Government have chosen to maintain existing British military capability, but at a lower level. On balance, I think that that decision is probably correct. Having argued for role specialisation in the past, I must now recognise that the scope for such change is limited. The Gulf war showed us clearly that the interests of European nations are not identical and that not all our allies can be relied on in the complex crises that have replaced the clarity of the former east-west conflict.
The cost of maintaining a wide range of diverse military capabilities will be substantial. Smaller forces, flexible enough to meet unpredictable challenges, must, as we all recognise, be well trained, well equipped and, above all, well motivated. That is not a cheap option. The worst of all worlds would be for British forces to find themselves smaller but still overstretched in an effort to cover too many roles and too many responsibilities. The new position offers us the chance to match, at long last, the resources of our armed forces to the tasks that we expect them to carry out. That, rather than a crude cost-cutting exercise, must be what we do in this operation.
9.9 pm
Mr. John Browne (Winchester) : Today I brought my top hat into the Chamber, for three reasons. The first is that we are witnessing the funeral of the British infantry--and here I disagree with some hon. Members who have spoken on that issue. Secondly, this is largely being done by a massive conjuring trick. Of course, one could produce a live rabbit from a top hat, but not from one that has been squashed flat and has become so small that it does not have credibility. My third reason is the great injustice that has been done to the three mutilated Grenadiers and many
Column 108
other service men who have not been properly compensated. I propose to wear my top hat in the Chamber until there is justice for those soldiers.The speech by my right hon. Friend the Minister was disappointing--I would have given it the title "Thanks for the Memory". But my right hon. Friends the Minister and the Secretary of State deserve sincere thanks for saving the regimental system, which was under question. They also deserve sincere praise for negotiating with our NATO allies our role in the rapid reaction corps. That was a very major achievement.
My right hon. Friend the Minister also deserves sympathy. I am about to criticise, but in the understanding that any reorganisation and any cuts involve difficulties. It is a darn tough job and this is a highly charged political issue.
First, cuts, like expansion, must be justified and, secondly, they must be sensibly made.
Mr. Gorbachev's peace challenge has changed the very nature of strategic peace itself from nuclear deterrence, under which we lived for 45 years--to a large extent under the nuclear wing of the United States eagle--to a peace of detente.
Although there have been great changes, I question whether there has been any significant lessening of the threat. Under the old threat, we knew its identity, probably the Warsaw pact ; we knew its direction, from the east ; and we knew the killing zone, in Europe. Now we do not know the identity, direction or potential killing zone. Who on 1 July last year would have expected the Gulf crisis? Today we look at the possibilities of a military backlash in the Soviet Union, of unrest in Europe and of mass immigration from eastern Europe to the EEC.
There are many lessons to be learned from the Gulf, a few of which I shall highlight. First, logistics are the essential oxygen of the modern high- intensity battlefield. Secondly, if one is not high-tech, one is dead. Third, it is difficult, if not impossible initially, to employ reserve forces in the front line teeth arms of a modern battlefield.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood) : They certainly were deployed in the Gulf war. What about the United States National Guard?
Mr. Browne : I am sorry, but I am rushing against the clock. We were told that in future we would deploy small, lightly equipped units, but in the Gulf crisis we deployed large, heavily equipped formations. The gap between warning time and response time was vital--we were lucky to get some six months.
The most important lesson was that the United Kingdom formations in Germany were not battle ready. Three armoured divisions were denuded to provide just two armoured brigades which were battle ready. The ratio was 9 : 2 in terms of men, ammunition, equipment and spare parts. It exemplified the fact that, for decades, we were sold third-party insurance in terms of our military defence. Successive Governments cut and said that it would make no difference, but it has made a difference. If the Government really believe that peace alone is not enough and that we demand peace with freedom, and therefore that defence is their primary duty, they owe it to the country to deliver comprehensive defence insurance.
Today's Army is not battle ready and is overstretched, and yet it is proposed to cut it by another one third. I have
Column 109
yet to hear what change in strategy, threat or task justifies that. The Chief Constable of Northern Ireland asked for another two battalions, but we cannot provide them. If we have a rapid reaction corps, we must have battle-ready divisions--we no longer want the type of divisions that sat undermanned and underequipped in Germany. Cuts must be constructive. They must be built up from the intended strategy and roles of the armed forces. They must concentrate on quality, cost- effectiveness and the best-suited assets. We now have a director of infantry who has called for equal pain, for pro rata, across-the-board cuts. I mean no disrespect to the Opposition but that is socialism-- socialism in uniform. I have never heard of anything so fatuous or damaging to the armed forces.If we are after quality, why do we consider cutting the Parachute Regiment, the Household division and the Gurkhas? If we are after suitability, why are we cutting five British battalions in order to retain the Gurkhas? Why are we cutting the large regiments, which we want, but saving the small ones? Pro rata cuts are utter nonsense and very damaging.
I turn to the Household division. A cut of three battalions is proposed for the Household division, but it has already lost two battalions in the previous cuts. It has a dual role--it has public duties and performs an active role, which is vital for recruitment for the whole division. Thirty per cent. of the Household division took part in the Gulf war. It is an extremely cost-effective division. First, it is made up of large regiments. Secondly, it earns money. Tourist income in Britain amounted to some £5.5 billion last year and, in view of the posters seen worldwide, what would be a fair estimate of the division's contribution to that sum-- 20 or 10 per cent? Even if one takes the lower figure, 10 per cent. represents £550 million that is earned by the Household division. Therefore, I believe that it is largely self-financing. The ceremonial uniforms for the entire division cost less than one tank.
As for quality, would it raise the quality of the British Army to cut three footguards battalions? Such a question is unbelievable. History proves it to be nonsense.
Why is a general--the poor chap whom I have criticised--the director of infantry--playing such a highly charged political role? I believe that, as many hon. Members have said, it is because my right hon. Friend and his colleagues have abdicated their responsibility for what is a very difficult political decision. In making that decision, my right hon. Friend must consider the concept of the critical mass--in this case, the critical mass of military credibility. I believe that the Army is already down to that critical mass and that the proposed cuts would go below it.
I turn now to the injured Grenadiers. Their story is well-known and I shall not waste time repeating it. The Government have decided not to make an ex gratia payment. They have challenged the three mutilated Grenadiers to take on the mighty Ministry of Defence, which has shrouded itself in secrecy. The Ministry of Defence still holds the crucial evidence on which the outcome will rely--the inquiry's report--and it is scandalous that it is still a classified document and not yet available to the Grenadiers' legal representatives. It is interesting that the Government keep assuring the House that no one was to blame for the incident. How is it possible to know that no one was to blame for an unexploded shell lying for five years on a range over which people have walked and which has been dug? The board of inquiry was not asked even to investigate why the shell was
Column 110
there, so it did not report on negligence in that respect. I believe that justice will not be done until my right hon. Friend assures the House that the board of inquiry's report will be made available and that the inquiry itself will be reopened.I welcome my right hon. Friend's proposed meetings with the Grenadiers' legal representatives, but they are not enough. We want either the ex gratia payment or the reopening of the board of inquiry. This would create a precedent, but why are the Government so worried about precedents? They are worried because there are tens of soldiers now in civilian life who have not received the correct compensation. They should have fair compensation, so of course we are striving to create a precedent because in this case it would be a good precedent.
I have already taken enough of the House's time, so I shall sit down.
9.19 pm
Mr. Ken Eastham (Manchester, Blackley) : I realise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we are all expected to try to be brief, and I therefore propose to touch on only three issues--Ministry of Defence contracts, the alternative strategy and a matter relating to service men. As an engineer, I readily welcome the contract placed for the Challenger 2 tank, which will greatly assist Newcastle and Leeds. The Challenger is a good tank--an efficient machine--and I also believe that we should buy British wherever possible. Having said that, I think that the Government should look to the future and realise that the contracts will last for only the next two or three years. We ought to consider our future strategy on how to provide work for defence workers in various parts of the country. We have often talked about the peace dividend, and we should remember that these are serious matters both for workers and for the nation as a whole. We cannot expect that the Ministry of Defence will be placing large orders for ever-- the days of large contracts are gone--and, that being so, we should seriously consider our strategy for the peace dividend.
My second point concerns the serious question of what is happening to the industrial south. The House will recall that during the last recession most of the defence jobs lost were based in the north, but now job losses are occurring in the south. That is something new. Companies such as Westland and British Aerospace are entering a critical period and the consequence will be further massive job losses. Perhaps hon. Members representing southern constituencies are not used to mass unemployment, but there is every indication that job losses will now descend on the south. I draw attention in particular to the large British Aerospace factory in Kingston. I have a letter from the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions, which has made some proposals for a sky park to help to alleviate the massive 3,200 job loss which will affect not only that factory but businesses in the area, both large and small. The same is true of many other areas in the south.
I am the secretary of the Amalgamated Engineering Union parliamentary group. I get tired of the increasing frequency with which people from the southern counties appeal to us to make representations about their jobs. It would be a healthy thing if Conservative Members from
Column 111
the southern counties started to take note of the growing problem, which will primarily affect the engineering industry.My third point concerns service men and personnel. Numerous hon. Members have spoken with great pride about the quality, loyalty and efficiency of our service men, saying what great people they are. A constituent of mine, Mr. H. A. Pickering, joined the forces as a boy soldier at the age of 17. Until that time he had had no other employment. He then went into the senior force and was posted to Munster in West Germany. He had been there for only six or eight weeks and was on sentry duty when, at the age of 19, he was shot up by the IRA in a terrorist attack. His legs were seriously injured and he received 11 machine gun bullet wounds. He was given 25 pints of blood and ultimately was discharged from the Army with a 50 per cent. disability.
That case was drawn to my attention in March. I made some inquiries about how that young man was managing because he had no family to go to. Some friends of mine took him in without any assistance. That young boy was having a very difficult time. I made inquiries about his benefits and discovered that he was initially receiving £83 a month from the German Government, £24.14 minus tax from the Army and £114 per month from the Department of Social Security. According to my calculations, that young lad was receiving less than £53 a week on which to live. Since my inquiries with the Minister, the Army pension has been increased to £144 a month, although that will still be taxed as before. He also received a princely lump sum of £2,578. That young lad is now 21. He would normally have expected to work for the next 40 years. I am extremely disappointed and dissatisfied about the treatment that he has received from the Government. I wrote to the MOD and received a letter from the Earl of Arran dated 20 June. He wrote :
"I am afraid that there is no appeal procedure against the rates of pension paid out under the Armed Forces Pension Scheme."
I thought about that lump sum of about £2,500 and the meagre monthly payment that that young man is receiving and I wondered what kind of a lump sum someone would expect to receive if he was involved in a serious motor accident. I also thought about what happens in the police force. Police work is hazardous. I made inquiries and was told that the police can receive two benefits--industrial injuries payments and criminal injuries compensation. However, that is not the case for the poor young lad who gave his best in the Army about which so many talk with pride. The Army offers very little compensation in such circumstances.
I get a little sick when I watch those great victory parades with people marching down the streets as bands play and flags fly. Although medals are given out, we never hear about the young fellows who have given their all, but have received virtually nothing in compensation.
I appeal to the Minister to review the appeal procedures for unfortunate people such as the young man whom I have described. Those people have given so much and are obviously receiving so little. It is about time that the MOD made changes through the Treasury so that those people can receive adequate compensation which would at least
Column 112
place them on the same footing as anyone else who suffers injury. This is a complete disgrace and the Minister has a lot to answer for.9.29 pm
Mr. Allan Rogers (Rhondda) : I was appalled by the behaviour of the Government Front-Bench Members when my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) outlined the case of his constituent who was badly wounded and received such sad, sorry and shabby treatment from Ministers.
The Secretary of State does not like this matter at all. He started off by muttering from a sedentary position when the Minister of State for the Armed Forces was discomforted by criticisms that were made of him on television--criticisms that were echoed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The Minister's discomfort reached appalling levels during the debate. If the television programme misrepresented his position-- [Interruption.] Even if the press release misrepresented his position, I watched the television programme and heard the Minister say that they should get jobs in which they do not need to use their legs, or words to that effect. If I have misunderstood it, I am sure that many other people have also misunderstood it. If the Minister does not like it, he has recourse to the courts to settle it. He does not have to come here to justify his position and waste the time of the House by making what was basically a personal statement on the issue.
The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) has highlighted the Government's position in the shabby sequence of events in which they participated. I am not at all surprised, because they reached the depths of shabbiness and contemptibility in their attack on the Labour party's position on the Gulf war. The Minister said that Labour shirked the fight and shirked the war. However, his right hon. Friends the present and previous Prime Ministers thanked the Labour party and the House for the solidarity that had been shown to our armed forces during the Gulf conflict. The Minister made a pathetic attempt to pick up a few votes.
A policy decision has been taken in the Conservative party to attack the Labour party on defence. That is fine ; we are happy to justify our position. [Interruption.] Our position is a darn sight stronger than that of the Secretary of State, especially when, as three or four hon. Members have pointed out, his generals were engaged in a Pontius Pilate act in the reorganisation of the Army. Because he is afraid of the political consequences, he handed over the decision to the colonels and the generals. That is not my criticism ; that has been said by the Secretary of State's right hon. and hon. Friends.
The previous Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Gentleman--I use the word "gentleman" advisedly, because he was a gentleman in his conduct of the business of the Ministry of Defence--paraphrased his right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) and told the Secretary of State for Defence how he should go about his business. He said--he can check the record tomorrow--how he should continue the process, which is exactly what the previous Prime Minister said to the present Prime Minister. The wisdom of the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) is needed by the House. When Ministers are running and electorally scared, they need the cool,
Column 113
calm wisdom of senior members of their party with a little experience--for example, the former Secretary of State for Defence. He put his finger right on it.All hon. Members have asked about the criteria used in cutting the strength of the Army. We have had no answer to that question. At no time over the past few months have Ministers put forward any proposals.
I must plead a special interest : I am a former member of the Welsh Regiment and of the Royal Welch Fusiliers, but I shall not again put the case for the fusiliers, since it was so ably put by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris)--
Mr. Martyn Jones (Clwyd, South-West) : I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I know that he is embarrassed because of his position as a former member of the Royal Welch Fusiliers, but as one from Wrexham, the regimental headquarters of that regiment, I should like to put the case on his behalf. It is ridiculous that a country the size of Wales should be cut down to one regiment, given that we recruit so well and constitute such a high proportion of the Army's numbers.
Mr. Rogers : I agreed to make a short wind-up speech so I will not reiterate the arguments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon. The Welsh dimension in this matter is unique. Seven per cent. of the Army's requirements are recruited from Wales--there is no problem with recruitment, therefore. I see that the Minister of State, Welsh Office is in his place ; he represents a Welsh-speaking constituency, so he knows that at least 40 per cent. of the Royal Welch Fusiliers speak Welsh.
If we believe in a regimental system at all, we should keep the Royal Welch Fusiliers. Recruitment, morale and the relationships between comrades from the same community, living and working together in danger--all are improved under the regimental system, so I suggest that the Secretary of State reconsider the case of the Royal Welch Fusilisers.
Having discharged my obligation to my old regiment, I wish to turn to some of the speeches that we have heard today. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) talked of a crude Treasury carve-up of the Army. He was right. Everyone knows that these cuts are Treasury driven, not strategically driven. We are worried about that lack of appraisal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) talked about how regiments help former members. The regimental system is the backbone of the British Army and it would be a sad day if it were ever done away with. In a small way, I have had reason to be grateful to the Welsh Regiment benevolent fund--after I emerged from the Army. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) made much the same point in a telling speech.
The former Secretary of State for Defence, in a superb speech, told the Government how they should behave. I hope that we shall hear a great deal more from him before he leaves the House. I also pay tribute to the speech by the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), who made a thoughtful and constructive contribution. He and I have often crossed swords on defence matters, but I found his speech extremely thought provoking.
Opposition Members do not need to criticise the Government. In today's debate, Conservative Members have said that we may put the armed forces in such a state
| Next Section
| Home Page |