| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
4.12 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): In his significant and serious speech, the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) recalled Lord Callaghan sending troops to Northern Ireland. At the end of the 1969 Session, I went to Lord Callaghan to argue that the Scottish regiments should not be sent to Northern Ireland. At his most formidable and avuncular, Jim said, "Don't worry--only 16 weeks and we will sort it out." Well, 16 weeks have become 30 years and will possibly be much longer. That confirms the point made by the right hon. Gentleman that we can never know what is around the corner.
In view of the right hon. Gentleman's opening remarks, I should point out that I am an honorary member of the mess of the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards--my former
national service regiment, the Royal Scots Greys, in which I served as a gunner. That relates to the point I want to make. During my visit to Bosnia two years ago, I had a long session with the sergeants' mess at the suggestion of a colonel. They told me that it was a bit much--their language was stronger--that, during their home leave in Fallingbostel, Luneburg or elsewhere in Germany, they were paid less, because of overseas allowances, for the time that they served through all the difficulties in Bosnia than if they had been in Germany.I realise that overseas allowances are a complex problem. However, although I argued that we should never have gone to Bosnia in the first place, I think that we shall stay there for my lifetime. The same may be true of Kosovo--those are continuing commitments.
Mr. Tom King indicated assent.
Mr. Dalyell: Those areas have become de facto United Nations protectorates, so we need long-term arrangements. Can the MOD institute a scheme whereby the payments made to those personnel whose families are with the Rhine Army can at least be equal to those they receive when they are in a difficult and challenging theatre of operations?
I must apologise to the House because I shall not be able to remain in the Chamber. As I am chairman of the all-party Latin America group, I want to attend a meeting at Lancaster house at which the President of Colombia will make an important statement.
I have one further reflection. My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) mentioned a monument to the nurses. The Ministry of Defence has been most helpful in relation to the Scottish nurses who served during the first world war. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence has great medical knowledge, so he will be aware that they performed heroics at Royaumont in 1917-18 and had previously done so in Serbia. Their work was brilliantly written up by Dr. Eileen Crofton. I hope that the MOD will consider what can be done to commemorate them.
4.17 pm
Mr. Ken Maginnis (Fermanagh and South Tyrone): It is always a privilege to speak in debates on our armed forces, especially after hon. Members such as the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). The right hon. Gentleman has a wealth of experience--in uniform and as a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and for Defence. He speaks wise words, and has a breadth and depth of understanding that we should acknowledge.
During 17 years as a Member of Parliament, I have frequently paid tribute to the courage and dedication of members of our armed forces--so much so that it almost becomes hackneyed. However, my tribute is not intended to be hackneyed. For almost 12 years, I had the privilege of serving alongside regular troops from Great Britain and full and part-time soldiers from Northern Ireland. I am aware of the tremendous sacrifice that has been made over 30 years.
Yesterday, the Royal Ulster Constabulary was presented with the George Cross--and rightly so. However, it is also appropriate to acknowledge the support given by our armed forces during the 30 years of violence in Northern Ireland. As a member of a small
minority party, I regret that I do not have the same opportunity as members of larger parties to go abroad and visit places where our forces are serving, such as Kosovo, Bosnia or the Falklands. However, perhaps I make up for that through living cheek by jowl with our serving soldiers for the past 30 years.I do not want to dwell exclusively on Northern Ireland issues, but want to suggest that the House has three responsibilities to our armed forces: on resources, on conditions and on equipment. Whatever the party of government, resources are always a huge problem. It is therefore incumbent on the Government and the House to ensure that the best possible use is made of resources. One can never dictate conditions, but by giving consideration to equipment we can serve our soldiers well.
In Kosovo, the Serbian troops were dug in. Precision bombing was therefore a key element of our campaign, to the extent that some of us became concerned that it was counterproductive. None the less, the supply and reinforcement routes to the Serbian army had to be cut, and initially we relied almost exclusively on our Air Force. One can imagine how concerned we were to hear that, whereas the GR1 had always been successful in its laser designations bombing system, the GR4 had run into such difficulties that it was unable to operate. That problem had been known about since 1998, and it has taken at least two and a half years to put it right.
There are always difficulties with new technology, and especially with high technology. Over the years, whatever party has been in government, there have been times when overspend has been necessary. On occasion, vast resources have been expended and nothing has been produced. I remember the debacle of the airborne warning and control system--AWACS--several years ago. We must ensure that we take every opportunity to use resources wisely by buying proven equipment.
A huge tribute must be paid to our pilots in that the vast majority of errors made during the Kosovo campaign were not made by United Kingdom pilots, but errors are not always made by pilots; there can be errors in information and intelligence. We must congratulate our forces on their success in Kosovo and consider the problems that they had to face. Those problems were not always connected with aircraft, and we are told that aircraft problems did not impact greatly on that campaign, although they could have done.
The campaign was certainly affected by the problem that our Army probably has the worst rifle of any modern army in western Europe. I know why the SA80 was chosen and how important it was to Royal Ordnance, but it has not been a success, and neither has the SA80 light machine gun. It is an accurate weapon, and it is probably more accurate than the SLR, which preceded it, but it is not as reliable. I am old enough to remember the mark 4 Lee Enfield.
Mr. Tom King indicated assent.
Mr. Maginnis: The right hon. Gentleman also remembers it. That was a wonderfully accurate and reliable weapon. Times move on and technology improves, but I was astonished to read that the SA80 is dangerous to a left-handed soldier because of how it discharges its rounds. Our soldiers, whether left or right-handed, have had to learn to fire off the right shoulder.
I know of the right hon. Gentleman's interest in cricket. Can he imagine what success the English cricket team would have if we made our right-handed batsmen play left-handed, or vice versa? On second thoughts, that might be a good idea. As a village schoolmaster, I would never have forced a left-handed child to use his or her right hand. Psychological damage may result from facing the challenge of working unnaturally along with the challenge of learning or, in the case of our soldiers, of trying to survive in a fire fight. That should have been thought about before the SA80 was issued.
Mr. Brazier: I support every word that the hon. Gentleman has said. The SA80 also presents the problem that, whether one is right or left-handed, effectively one cannot fire around the left-hand corner of a building without exposing one's entire body, which is ridiculous. It is manifestly an unsoldierly weapon.
Mr. Maginnis: Indeed, the hon. Gentleman reinforces my point. I do not want to go on ad infinitum about our soldiers' faulty equipment, but it is important that someone points out the problems. Our radios have been a problem since I first put on a uniform, 30 years ago. It seems that our radios have never worked, and I believe that the problem is getting worse. What are we going to do to provide our soldiers with equipment that works and gives them confidence?
I referred to bomb-aiming equipment, and I turn now to another weapon that will be essential during the next decade. I refer to the need to bring into operation the beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile--BVRAAM--programme for the Eurofighter. Shorts Thompson, in my part of the world, has proposed to provide an extended-range air-to-air missile that has been tested, whereas no other weapon being tendered at this stage has been proven. Shorts Thompson is offering a proven weapon at half the price. It will represent value for money because it is faster, better and cheaper.
I shall say more about the needs of our soldiers in a moment. If the MOD is concerned about stretching resources, it should consider tested and proven equipment that builds on the advanced medium-range air-to-air missile that has been in service for some time, and offers the opportunity to extend the technology at comparatively--everything is costly in absolute terms--little cost. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) expressed his frustration that the debate is not specifically about procurement. However, we cannot consider the interests of our personnel without touching on that issue. Therefore, I hope that the Government will take best advantage of the resources available to them.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman also mentioned the consequences of underestablishment in our security forces, including overstretch and pressure on families, and he quoted figures that I have with me. I shall not reiterate his remarks, but should like to present the figures in a slightly different fashion. We currently expect our soldiers to undertake operational tours at an unsustainable rate. Over the past four years, the Royal Armoured Corps has suffered a 60 per cent. reduction in the intervals between operational tours; the Royal Artillery a 50 per cent.
reduction; the Royal Engineers and Royal Signals a 70 per cent. reduction; and the infantry a reduction of almost 50 per cent. That cannot be sustained. I can offer the Government no solution, but it is a problem that they must address as a matter of urgency. At a time when there is adequate employment in the civilian world for our young men and women, what will be the attraction of Army life if such demands continue to be made? I should say that I recognise that the Government are aware of the problem and I welcome the increase in separation allowances.Let me return to events in Northern Ireland. There is now huge pressure--political pressure, although that is not always admitted--on our Army and police, such that its being carried through to its logical conclusion will not only endanger society in Northern Ireland, but place our operational troops in danger. There has been a reduction--I hope that it is justified--in the number of soldiers posted to duty in Northern Ireland: the number of roulement battalions has been reduced to only two. If those troops are not required on the ground, the reduction in their number is welcome, as none of us wants to see our soldiers while away idle hours behind barracks walls. However, I hope that the reduction is not making it necessary for members of the Royal Irish Regiment, who live in Northern Ireland and serve, not in six-month tours, but continuously, to work the long hours--80 or 90 hours a week--that they have had to work on previous occasions.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |