| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5.58 pm
Ms Julia Drown (South Swindon): Given the nature of conflicts in the world, the quality of our armed forces is crucial, and probably the most important subject for the military to concentrate on. It is wise to spend a greater proportion of the Ministry of Defence's money on personnel and less money on huge equipment and weapons which, under the previous Government, always seemed to cost far more than was first estimated. It is better to spend money on armed forces personnel than on weapons of mass destruction, which we should not contemplate using in the first place.
I pay tribute to the brave men and women of our armed forces, both full-time and reserves, who join the armed forces never knowing what will be expected of them. In Kosovo, our armed forces' actions in supporting the refugees in camps was remarkable, and something of which we can all be proud.
The Government, in turn, want to support our armed forces and their families. The families of armed forces personnel often pay a large price in terms of disrupted life styles, loss of contact between family members and, in times of conflict, having to endure great anxiety. For that reason, I congratulate the Government on taking steps to make the lives of armed forces personnel easier by giving improved leave arrangements, more contact time, and help with health care and school places, as well as more choice in terms of where people are posted.
One of the issues that caused anger in my constituency was the closure by the previous Government of the RAF Princess Alexandra hospital in Wroughton in south Swindon. It was well used and much admired by military and civilian patients alike. It is still much missed by my constituents. That closure was another example of the bad decisions made by the previous Government, which left a terrible legacy in my constituency.
By contrast, this Government are taking the views of everyone in the country seriously, and they deserve praise for making the armed forces better reflect the composition of the United Kingdom. The percentage of posts open to women has been increased from 47 per cent. to 70 per cent., but I would like it to be increased further. The target of getting 5 per cent. of all new recruits from all ethnic minorities by the year 2002 is admirable.
In relation to the recruitment and deployment of young people in the armed forces, it is of great regret that there are about 300,000 child soldiers throughout the world. Recruits in Uganda are sometimes as young as 13; the UK recruits at 16. That is of concern to the general public, as evidenced by constituents who raise the issue with me, who want an end to the use of child soldiers in armed conflict and in peacekeeping forces. They are supported by UNICEF, Save the Children, Amnesty International and others, including 110 hon. Members who signed an early-day motion that I tabled on the subject. I thank all those hon. Members for their support.
The Ministry of Defence has announced that UK service personnel under the age of 17 will not be deployed, but that means that 17-year-olds are deployed in military actions. In many aspects of our law, someone of 17 is recognised as a child--although I am aware that 17-year-olds would rather be referred to as young people. Whether we describe 17-year-olds as young people or as children, they rightly deserve protection under the Children Acts, because they can be vulnerable. Those aged 17 cannot buy an alcoholic drink in a pub in our country, but they can be deployed in operations and die for our country, even though they cannot vote for the Government who send them on those missions.
This is not an academic argument. Two brave 17-year-olds lost their lives for our country in the Gulf war. In paying tribute to them, I hope that we all agree that that is too much to ask of such young people. At present, UK 17-year-olds are members of the international peacekeeping force in Kosovo; there are 4,500 16 and 17-year-olds in the British Army. If we compare our record with that of our European partners, it is not good. Belgium is the only other country that generally recruits at 16. Neither France nor Germany will deploy young people until they reach the age of 18.
I am pleased that the Ministry of Defence is keeping its deployment policy under review. I strongly urge the Ministry to review the policy soon, with a view to changing it. Not only is the matter important for our own armed forces and for our reputation in the world, it is important when we negotiate with international colleagues to achieve the worldwide elimination of the use of child soldiers and of the worst forms of child labour.
There has been progress in that matter. Only two weeks ago, on 16 June, a new International Labour Organisation convention was adopted unanimously by 174 member states. The convention intends to eliminate the worst forms of child labour as a matter of urgency. It provides the first, specific legal recognition that the use of child soldiers is a form of child labour. It states that the age limit for child soldiering should be 18. I urge the Government to ratify the convention as soon as possible. The worst examples are to be found among the 13 and 15-year-olds who are recruited throughout the world,
and in the forced and compulsory recruitment of children. We are not involved in any of those activities. However, if we are to play a strong hand in negotiating the achievement of the convention, we need to apply the arrangements in our own armed forces.
One of the reasons given by the Ministry of Defence for recruiting at 16 rather than 18 is that, if potential applicants are not recruited until they are 18, they will take up educational and other opportunities that lead them into other careers. That could be interpreted as, "Let's get them early--before they know any better", but that is not what we want. The Government are rightly committed to making membership of the armed forces a more attractive career. I have every confidence that they will succeed in that aim. That is the appropriate way to recruit people. We should all be concerned that, when people are too young, they may not have the maturity to take such an important decision with due thought and consideration. By ensuring that people are mature enough to make the decision to join the armed forces, we would be sure that we recruited those who are most suited to a military career.
Three facts are relevant to the attitude of the Ministry of Defence in relation to recruitment at 16 and deployment at 17.
First, there is a European Council directive of June 1994 on the protection of young people at work. It provides that young people under the age of 18 should be protected
Secondly, last October, the United Nations announced that all peacekeepers in UN missions should be at least 18 years old, and preferably over 21. Again, we should bear that in mind when considering the appropriate age at which we recruit to our armed forces.
Thirdly, let me take the House back to 1914, when no one under the age of 18 could be recruited into the armed forces. Now, 85 years later, there are 1,700 16-year-olds and 2,800 17-year-olds in the British Army. That cannot be described as progress. Instead, in that respect we are providing less protection to the young people of this country.
Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury):
Time constraints prevent me from pursuing the comments made by the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown), although I must say that I profoundly disagree with them. However, I commend the courageous words of my Select Committee colleague, the hon. Member for Crawley
If the words of Ministers in this and other debates are to be believed, our strategic policy is an unparalleled success: Saddam Hussein was punished last year; Ulster is responding to the Prime Minister's statesmanship; and Milosevic's thugs have been driven out of Kosovo by British-led forces--half of whom, we were assured last Wednesday, are likely to be home by Christmas. Meanwhile, our forces are undergoing a healthy modernisation process in the strategic defence review, which is a model much imitated around the world.
It is interesting that not a single speech by a Back Bencher on either side of the House has conformed to that picture. In opposition, the Prime Minister deplored publicly--and rightly, so many Conservative Back Benchers thought--the overstretch in our armed forces. In 1997, at the time of the general election, we had the smallest Regular Army since the Crimean war, and the most thinly spread since 1945, measured in terms of operational commitments. As Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Gentleman promised, in a now notorious newspaper article, that things were going to change. They certainly have.
Since taking power, the Labour Government have launched major operations involving members of all three services in large numbers in the Gulf and in Kosovo, yet they have continued to cut the defence budget substantially. Morale in the armed forces has been further damaged by the Government deciding, immediately on taking office, to phase last year's modest 3.7 per cent. pay rise, in spite of the manning problems at that time. This year, it is difficult to exaggerate the impact on Army morale of the shocking potential exposure to terrorist threat of the families of a group of ex-soldiers, courtesy of Lord Saville's inquiry.
Last week, the Secretary of State admitted that the Army is still shrinking, and we have heard the figures in more detail today. A small upturn in recruitment has been outweighed by the haemorrhage--in the case of the Army, that is the correct word--of talented young men and women, especially men, from the ranks of junior officers and experienced non-commissioned officers. We were told that unaccompanied tour intervals for infantry units are running at 15 months, compared with a target of 24 months; but, because of the need to back fill, overstretch on men is far worse than the paper figures on units, so we are in fact achieving less than half that target. The figures for the Cavalry and the Royal Engineers are even worse.
The strategic defence review planned two trade-offs for the Army. One was the amalgamation of the elite 5th Airborne Brigade with our only other air manoeuvre brigade, 24 Air Mobile. That was to release funds to pay for a sixth armoured brigade. The second trade-off was a halving of the Territorial Army combat units to pay for 3,000 extra regular soldiers.
As a result of the lamentable manning figures and the Kosovo operation, both increases have been postponed indefinitely. The Regular Army's projected date for full manning has slipped again from 2004 to 2005, and no one in the Army to whom I have spoken believes that it will be achieved by that date. We were told last Wednesday that the formation of the new sixth armoured infantry
brigade has been deferred by between 15 and 18 months. In practice, without a large upturn in manning and a draw-down from the Balkans, it cannot happen at all. However, the corresponding cuts are happening as we speak.
Members on both sides of the House have commended the extraordinary success of the lightning intervention by 5th Airborne Brigade. No other brigade in the British Army could have achieved that. There are parallels. In the Gulf in 1990, the 81st Airborne Brigade of the US armed forces was in position within a week. The Israeli forces who achieved the extraordinarily successful raid on Entebbe are another example. In each case, the action was nothing to do with parachuting, but concerned an air manoeuvre that could have been carried out only by paratroops and organised only by an airborne headquarters. Yet that elite centre of excellence, which took 10 years to build up, is to be broken up as soon as the brigade headquarters can be replaced in Kosovo.
The other cut is also taking place. Territorial Army units are being broken up in disbandment parades throughout the country, although the 3,000 regulars have disappeared off the radar screen.
I shall briefly consider those issues in more detail. The Under-Secretary has taken the trouble to reply in detail to procurement questions, but each time I have tried to raise with his colleagues either of the armed forces issues to which I have just referred, they have replied with woolly generalisations. First, on the airborne point, 24 Air Mobile Brigade caused embarrassment to this country when it took six or seven months to get to Bosnia in 1992. I do not want to attack any part of the British Army, but nobody believes that 24 Air Mobile's readiness to deploy remotely compares to that of 5th Airborne Brigade.
We are cutting down to one airborne brigade to pay for a sixth armoured brigade. That change takes us in the opposite direction of most other armies, which think that they need more fast and light troops and less heavy metal. Nevertheless, if we are to make that transformation, why not base that brigade around the 5th Airborne Brigade headquarters, which has just proved itself so effective? I should like to know the specific reason for the decision. I am not asking the Minister to respond in this debate, but I would like a proper written answer from him or his colleagues.
The second detailed issue relates to the Territorial Army. Each time I have raised the need to suspend the cuts in the TA, at least while we are unable to recruit extra regular soldiers, I have been given the same reply. As recently as last Wednesday, the Secretary of State said that the reforms--he keeps using that word--in the Territorial Army have made it easier, rather than more difficult, to use territorials. We introduced reforms in 1996 when, with support on both sides of the House, we passed legislation that made it much easier to use territorials. The Defence Secretary has not explained how halving the number of territorials in combat units will make it easier to use them.
Let us consider the infantry. It used to be possible to put for a fortnight a territorial infantry battalion in the place of a regular infantry battalion. I once took part in such a deployment. That could give a regular battalion a break. However, under the new configuration, there is no proper battalion headquarters, so such battalions cannot be used in an emergency to take the place for a short time of a regular battalion.
The lack of such headquarters and the decision to cut most all-arms training for TA units will inevitably mean a decline in the quality of training of officers. In future, officers in those battalions will lack the experience of collective training--experience that has so far stood in good stead the many TA officers who have been through Bosnia. The future TA will not only be much smaller in its combat elements, but in some parts, particularly the infantry, much less usable.
I turn to the commitments that our forces are likely to face. Yes, we should be proud of the fact that British forces led the way into Kosovo--although it was after the humanitarian disaster that our intervention was designed to avert. None the less, Milosevic pulled out with virtually no damage to his armed forces. We have found virtually no knocked-out armoured vehicles, despite all the extravagant claims of NATO, British Ministers and senior officers. Our forces in the Balkans are poised between a Yugoslav army, which is largely intact, and the forces of the KLA, who have already begun to shoot at Serbs, peacekeepers and each other.
The situation looks more and more like that in Palestine--an unhappy one in which my father served and on which, after three years of trying to uphold a League of Nations mandate, a Labour Prime Minister took the courageous view that it was time to pull the plug.
The Gulf has hardly been mentioned in this debate, but Saddam Hussein has not gone away. Just a year ago, the Secretary of State said in answer to one of his hon. Friends that action would cease when Saddam Hussein responded to the United Nations resolutions. He has not, and the inspectors--and with them most of our intelligence on his weapons programmes--have left Iraq. To the Arab world, Saddam Hussein is getting stronger not weaker.
"from any specific risks to their safety . . . which are a consequence of their lack of experience".
Work that is likely to contain specific risks includes the
"manufacture and handling of devices . . . or other objects containing explosives."
That clearly has an impact on under-18s in our armed forces.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |