| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Madam Speaker: At the risk of appearing brusque to some hon. Gentlemen, I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave yesterday, which was a considerable and considered one. I heard the exchange today and I was happy to give the right hon. Gentleman the opportunity to raise the matter with the Leader of the House. As he requests, I shall refresh my memory of "Erskine May" and see what I can do about the matter.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raised his concern about the conduct of Prime Minister's questions, but you will have observed that several hon. Members, including me, were exercising their leg muscles to no productive effect during questions to the Solicitor-General and were disappointed that we got through only three questions in the 15 minutes allotted. Is it not reasonable in the circumstances to advise the Solicitor-General that he is deputed to answer questions, not Adjournment debates?
Madam Speaker: Three questions were taken, but the hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, readily accept that there were supplementaries to those questions. However, I am sure that the point has been taken.
Armed Forces Personnel
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Clelland.]
1.21 pm
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): I hope to be able to spend a little longer addressing the House than I was able to do on Third Reading of the Armed Forces Discipline Bill. Before I move on to the details of our current policies and programmes on personnel, I want to put the debate in its broader context. It can almost seem a cliche in these debates when hon. Members refer to our armed forces as the best in the world, but it is certainly justified. That is also the view of the British public, who regularly in opinion polls put the armed forces up at the top of the groups they admire. The good thing about journalists is they sometimes prevent us politicians from being at the bottom of those tables.
That view is shared by the armed forces fellow military professionals around the world and by the wider international community who regularly look for contributions, particularly early contributions, from our armed forces. Whether fighting or peacekeeping, their reputation and their record is superb. But what is it that brings that about? We need to stress that it is not primarily equipment, very important though that is. After all, any country with sufficient resources can buy new kit.
The key element is the quality of our people both individually and, even more significantly, collectively. It is certainly true that individually our service men and women are superb. They are bright, capable, committed and enthusiastic. One of the best things about this job is getting out to meet our troops and hearing them describe what they do, the satisfaction they have in a job well done and the impact that has on the lives of others. However, in the broader context, even more significant has been the forces' ability over many years to create an identity, an ethos and a system for moulding the collective effort that is the key to their internationally recognised quality. We, as Defence Ministers, and the current service chiefs have to consider how we can best build on that.
The measure of our success as a Government is whether we enhance or erode that common purpose, and in what shape we hand it on. Now I realise that that could be seen as a hostage to fortune, but I believe it is, and should be, proper and agreed common ground on both sides of the House.
Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West): Is not the Minister concerned that a doctrine of political correctness--some of it imported, but a measure of it home grown--is undermining that ethos and constraining service life and training? What will he do about that?
Mr. Spellar: If that were the case, we would of course be concerned. As it is not, we are not.
So how are we doing? The answer is not badly. We have dealt with some of the more glaring problems, we have reacted quickly as new ones have arisen, and in some areas we still have some way to go--but we have plans for progress.
What does the situation look like on the front line? In the past 12 months, I have made a point of visiting our personnel whenever possible, to see what they do and to
hear what they have to say. During my visits, I have been struck by a fact that is sometimes sadly overlooked, not least by the media. It is that our people greatly enjoy what they do. Again and again, talking to defence personnel, I and other hon. Members hear the refrain, "It's the best job in the world." That should not surprise us. We are employing people whose careers give them quite extraordinary opportunities to travel, to learn or to make a difference. Increasingly, that is what they do. They truly are a force for good worldwide.We have forces deployed globally, reflecting Britain's interests as a key international player and a trading nation. In addition to our major deployments in the Balkans and the Gulf, personnel are deployed in support of United Nations operations in Cyprus, along the Iraq-Kuwait border, in Georgia, Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of Congo and East Timor. They are all making a magnificent contribution to ensuring peace and rebuilding shattered communities.
There can be little that is more rewarding than seeing that one's actions make people's lives better and knowing that one is making the world a safer place in which to live. Whether it is a pilot delivering supplies in Mozambique or a soldier bringing stability and safety to the streets of Pristina or providing advice in west Africa, our people can see that they are doing good.
Our personnel are chosen because of the people that they are: self-starting, enthusiastic and active. They enjoy being engaged on operations and relish the challenges that operations present. They take immense pride in doing what they do to the highest professional standards. Time and again, when talking to personnel on operations I, and others, encounter enthusiasm, pride and professionalism, even when a specific isolated task may be unpleasant and, indeed, even dangerous. I am sure that the House hardly needs me to remind it of the exemplary conduct displayed by our troops worldwide, including in such difficult circumstances as the unrest in the town of Mitrovica earlier this year. We are proud of them.
This House and the British people owe our personnel an enormous debt of gratitude for that unstinting enthusiasm and professionalism. By the same token, the support that our personnel receive from the British people, much of the media and this House means a great deal to them. It shows them that the great value of what they do is appreciated by the people back home. That is tremendously important to them, particularly when the immediate crisis has passed and their task has slipped from the public consciousness and from media attention.
It is important that all in this House remember that, away from the headlines, we have personnel on duty 24 hours a day, 365 days a year--366, this year--often in trying circumstances. In Ulster, the Balkans and the Gulf, our people are risking their lives day in, day out on our behalf. I am sure that the whole House will join me in expressing our thanks and appreciation for what they do.
We cannot, however, ignore the price of such commitment. There is no doubt that the services are extremely busy and that is not just the front line. To keep units on operations requires a tremendous support organisation and that, too, has to work extremely hard to make operations a success. That high level of operational commitment has a number of effects. The first, and most obvious, is the pressure on personnel and their families, with long periods of separation, uncertainty and
disruption--none of these are good for family life. While an individual may be enjoying the challenges and excitement of an operational deployment, it can be a different story for the family left at home.Early on, this Government recognised the pressures on our personnel and determined that we would take major steps to lessen those pressures, and we have. Whenever and wherever we can, we have been reducing commitments. The percentage of the trained Army that is now committed to operations is 27, which is slightly below that committed in l997. Our ongoing restructuring of the armed forces will help.
We are being proactive and imaginative in reducing commitments. For instance, earlier this year we awarded a £20 million contract for the installation of a telecommunications network for our forces in the Balkans--that network will free 260 Royal Signals soldiers from their Balkans commitments by the end of this year. We all know of the pressures on our signals personnel. I will return to other measures to improve the lives of our people shortly.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned the families left at home. Of course, families are also left in the Rhine Army, when personnel have gone to serve in Mitrovica or elsewhere in the Balkans. Can my hon. Friend say anything on the vexed question of overseas allowances? It is totally unsatisfactory that people should be getting less for serving in the Balkans than they do when they are in Rhine Army.
Mr. Spellar: My hon. Friend will be aware of the substantial amount of the overseas allowance that is still retained. I will deal later with the additional allowances that we have been providing for separation. I take my hon. Friend's point that there is a difficulty. This is an extremely complicated issue, which relates to taxation issues as well. I would be more than happy to correspond with my hon. Friend to explain some of the problems that we have encountered.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |