| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Key: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Royal Navy bears its share of that pressure? Was he as disturbed as I was to hear talk of the withdrawal, in response to budgetary pressures, of the three guardships from Northern Ireland? My understanding is that those vessels are crucial to the security of Northern Ireland.
Mr. Maginnis: There is no doubt that the Royal Navy presence is absolutely crucial. That detachment currently works under extreme pressure in Northern Ireland. It is a matter of huge regret to us that two soldiers on attachment to the Royal Navy were killed in a recent accident. The leader of my party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), has previously paid tribute to members of the armed forces in Northern Ireland who have made such sacrifices.
I listened with interest to the remarks about people with criminal records being recruited into the armed services. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will be careful about that. It has ever been so--there is nothing particularly new in the proposal--but that does not mean that the Army, the Navy or the Air Force provide accommodation for criminals. Service in the armed forces provides opportunities to those who are prepared to turn over a new leaf and submit themselves to the authority and discipline of the armed services. It is probably too long since I first put on a uniform for me to avoid wondering about the issue of discipline within our armed services. I hope that the Government will do nothing to undermine the authority of our experienced and extremely good senior officers in disciplinary matters. If we are to provide people who have criminal records with new opportunities in the armed services, they must fully understand their commitment to their regiment. The last thing we want is to find that the Army is considered to be some sort of sin bin--that must not happen.
Discipline in the Army will come under increasing pressure from external sources. We have seen that happen to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The RUC is under pressure from those who claim to represent human rights interests, despite the fact that, in the face of the most serious provocation, the RUC has maintained discipline for more than 30 years, during which time tens of thousands of people have served in it. Despite that, in a few days' time, the Government are to introduce a 50-page Bill that, as I read it, deals exclusively with how we can put constraints on our police. Will the same thing happen to our Army as it fulfils a policing role throughout the world?
The Saville commission has been meeting in Northern Ireland, 28 years after what all of us agree was an unfortunate and tragic Sunday in 1972. Nobody doubts that mistakes were made. Equally, nobody doubts that in 1972 our troops were not trained to the level to which they are now trained to deal with civil disturbance. I cannot remember clearly what happened 28 years ago. Sometimes I cannot remember what happened yesterday, and I certainly have some difficulty with 1972.
The Army is being examined in a way that will be unfair to it. It was interesting to learn that Martin McGuinness, who is qualified to be a Member of this place, was possibly the person who fired the first shot in 1972. Those of us who have known his activities in the intervening years will not be surprised by that. The sad thing is that the Army will not have dedicated propagandists to deal with Mr. McGuinness's misdemeanours at that time, whereas there are those who have a vested interest in denigrating our Army, and not just in Northern Ireland. It will happen wherever our Army serves for an extended period.
It is important that morale, resources and equipment are sustained at a level that gives the Army the confidence to operate in the most difficult and dreadful circumstances, as we have seen it operate over the years.
I close as I began, by paying tribute to the men and women who, as the right hon. Member for Bridgwater properly pointed out, no matter what we throw at them from this place, maintain their discipline and are unquestioning in the service that they give. Hence, it is up to us to reciprocate.
4.43 pm
Sir Archie Hamilton (Epsom and Ewell): I follow the Minister for the Armed Forces in the tributes that he paid to our armed forces and the enthusiasm, pride and professionalism that they demonstrate.
We are fortunate in our armed forces, who have a unique capability. As one of the great institutions of this country, they seem to hold their place in the esteem of the people of Britain, at a time when, regrettably, our judiciary has declined in public esteem and, even more regrettably, our police are not viewed with the same respect as they used to be, but that certainly does not apply to the armed forces.
Of course, Parliament and Members of Parliament have probably sunk in public esteem more rapidly than any other part of our national institutions. One wonders about the esteem in which the Labour party holds our armed forces, when there is not a single Labour Back Bencher in the Chamber to take part in the debate. That indicates the attitude of the Labour party towards the armed forces.
It will be recognised by members of the armed forces that Labour Members, other than the Minister and the Whip sitting on the Front Bench, cannot be bothered to be present.The Minister referred to the long periods of separation that our armed forces have to undergo. He recognised that that was extremely bad for family life in the forces, and consequently for retention. The divorce rates, which have become worse since 1990, are a signal that something is badly wrong and must be addressed.
It is not good enough for the Government to say that because the people involved are, on the whole, young married couples, it is unfair to compare the divorce rates in the armed forces with those for the nation as a whole. The fact that the divorce rate has been increasing over recent years is a matter of enormous concern and must be tackled.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): The rate did get worse in one year, but it has been fluctuating for many years.
Sir Archie Hamilton: That is reflected in retention. I am sure the Minister recognises that the retention problems are great. Often, the cause of service men leaving is the fact that their wives complain bitterly. Young couples do not expect to get married and not to see each other for a prolonged period because the husband is away on service. They complain bitterly about that, and it is one of the reasons why retention is running as badly as it is at present.
The Minister said that the commitments to operations, running at 27 per cent., were the same as they were in 1997. I do not find that a source of great reassurance. We know that the situation in Northern Ireland is extremely difficult. As the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) mentioned, things could well get even more difficult there over the next few months, and we would then have to increase force levels in Northern Ireland.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) said, other commitments might arise. It is extremely difficult to drop existing commitments, but very easy to take up new ones, as the history of our commitments around the world shows. It is difficult to see any major difference between Bosnia and Kosovo, and Cyprus, where we have been for 30 years. As the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) observed, we will no doubt have United Nations commitments in Bosnia and Kosovo for the rest of our lives, and probably for the lifetime of any other hon. Member as well, because such situations seem to go on for ever.
The Minister correctly identified successful training as essential to our forces. The fact that they are, on the whole, better trained than any other army makes them so exceptional. I am sure that the Government therefore recognise the considerable concern that is caused when exercises are cancelled, as has been happening; when flying hours are reduced from 203,000 hours in 1996 to 184,000 in 1999; when we have to economise on ships on patrol; and when cuts are made constantly, reducing the training opportunities for our armed forces. That is a matter of great concern.
When we consider training, we have to ask what our armed forces are for. As my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) said, that great and brilliant general,
Mike Jackson, tried to complete the circle, saying that they had to be prepared to do almost anything. There has always been the serious question whether our armed forces exist to defend these shores and to be prepared to be involved in high-intensity warfare, or whether they are to be peacekeepers, deployed all round the world, doing an entirely different job.General Mike Rose always took the view that soldiers could not be asked to do both. Either they were in the business of helping old ladies across the road, escorting food convoys, and generally being rather gentle policemen to people whom they were trying to keep apart, or they were in the business of killing people. Both roles cannot be combined, and it is unfair to ask the armed forces to do that.
We must always bear in mind the bottom line: the job of our armed forces is high intensity warfare and to defend our shores and our interests in wars. We must be careful that we do not degrade their capacity to do that when we send them on peacekeeping missions.
Mr. Key: Was my hon. Friend as surprised as me that the strategic defence review almost ignored home defence? My hon. Friend referred twice to defending these shores, but the strategic defence review assumed that there was no longer any need to do that or for the military to have such a role.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |