| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Maginnis: On liaison between various countries, has the right hon. Gentleman taken on board my point about the Raytheon contribution to the beyond-visual- range air-to-air missile tender? If we went for that option, we would get technology that we do not have for free.
Sir Archie Hamilton: Yes, indeed. There is a great debate--we have had many before--about whether we should go for European technology, which has an awful long way to go in development terms, or well-tried United States technology. I have no interest either way, but the people with whom I discuss these matters say that the difference in price is some £400 million, which is a large gap on a £750 million contract. Enormous pressure to buy European will be applied on the basis that we are keeping a technological base here. For that reason, it may be difficult for Shorts to win this one.
Mr. Maginnis: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. I merely want to remind him that Shorts is now fully owned by Thomson-CSF, so there is also a European dimension.
Sir Archie Hamilton: I accept that there is a European dimension, but a much more interesting aspect of procurement is the current discussion between BAE Systems and Boeing. In the past there has been the same split--the same argument about whether we go American or European--but if a monopoly defence contractor in this country is now going to establish major links with an American contractor, it is an entirely different ballgame. Much will depend on how strong those links become. If the two companies merge, the debate about whether to buy American or to buy European will change. If we wanted to look after our major defence contractor here, it would inevitably involve American technology. No doubt we can have an interesting discussion about that in the future.
As many speakers have observed, we must abandon the idea of 3 per cent. savings. I think that those savings are doing enormous damage in the MOD, that we must stabilise expenditure and stop cutting it further, and that we must do all that we can to achieve proper spending
levels. We must also be extremely wary about the commitments that we take on in the future, because I do not think that our forces are up to meeting them all at current levels.5.6 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton and Wanstead): It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton). He was a very competent Defence Minister, and was always courteous to me when I intervened and asked questions. I agree with him and others that it is easy to enter into commitments, but they often turn out to be long-haul commitments, and it is not so easy to get out.
Yesterday we debated the Post Office. About three years ago, I went on holiday to a lovely little village. The village magazine contained the obituary of a woman who had clearly been the life and soul of the village. It gave her life history, and mentioned that she had married the local postman, but the second world war had then arrived and he had been posted abroad. [Laughter.] A person may have been a postman or had some other job, but anyone in the armed forces is likely to be posted abroad. I apologise for that rather weak story, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Never mind; I shall continue with my speech.
I pay tribute to the Government for making important improvements in armed forces personnel policy in just three years. They have made the personnel far more professional. The document "Armed Forces Overarching Personnel Strategy", which is available for Members to see, sets out a good framework.
Racism has been mentioned, and no doubt it still exists in the armed forces. The Conservatives have a poor record in that regard: only a report produced by the Commission for Racial Equality threatening to take them to court forced them to change their policy. There is a fantastic difference between their approach and that of the present Government, who are determined to root out racism in the forces and to establish equal opportunities. Tackling racist bullying is very important.
Mr. Duncan Smith: I know the hon. Gentleman to be fair, but I must say this to him: first, there was no policy against other races coming into the armed forces; and secondly, he should pay tribute to members of the armed forces who, mostly on their own initiative, have set about sorting out the perceived problems, particularly in the Household Division, which has been lauded by the CRE for having changed all that. It was in the hands more of the soldiers, sailors and airmen than of politicians of either side.
Mr. Cohen: I pay tribute to the new personnel and managers in the armed forces. They have fallen into line with the Government's policy to tackle racism, but that was the problem: the previous Government did not have a policy on it. The result was that the number of people from ethnic minority communities coming into the armed forces was very low. The number being retained was very low, too, because of the racism that they encountered there. I am delighted that that and, indeed, institutional racism in recruitment, retention and promotion policies, are being tackled.
The Government set a goal to recruit 3 per cent. from ethnic minority communities in 1999-2000, rising annually by 1 per cent. to 5 per cent. by the end of 2001-02. I was disappointed that, in answer to my intervention, the Minister had to admit that that target had not been met, although there has been a significant increase, to which he alluded.
I want to give an overview of the figures. In 1997-98, 0.9 per cent of the Royal Navy's recruits were from ethnic minority communities; in the Army, the figure was 1.4 per cent; and in the RAF it was 1 per cent. In 1998-99, the Government's first full year in office, recruitment from those communities was 1.6 per cent. in the Royal Navy, 2 per cent. in the Army and 1.4 per cent. in the RAF.
There is sure to have been an improvement this year, which will at least get us close to the 3 per cent. target, but I am disappointed that it has not been met. I ask the Minister to look at the matter because there are higher targets next year and action needs to be taken to ensure that they are met.
There are good pilot projects, but they are moving too slowly. They need to be extended to other areas with large ethnic minority communities, including my area. There are potential recruits in the borough of Waltham Forest. More recruits from the Asian community could easily be picked up for the armed forces--for the armed forces' benefit, I might add.
Role models remain important. There are just not enough of them high enough up in the armed forces, acting as a beacon and an attraction for others to come in, and perhaps try to emulate people such as General Colin Powell in the United States. I hope that we can get some role models as part of that process.
Recruitment of women is a success story. The percentage of women in the armed forces has risen. In 1999, it was about 7.6 per cent., but I note that there is no target on the proportion of women in the armed forces. I urge the Government to set such a target. It should go to 10 per cent. at an early time and move up to double the present level--perhaps to 15 per cent--within a relatively short time.
Some of the increasing commitments that we are talking about are peacekeeping commitments. Women are ideally placed in the armed forces to play an important part in that peacekeeping role. I am concerned that women are being kept out of some parts of the service. The present Government have increased the number of roles in which women can serve. Before they came to office, only 45 per cent. of roles could be filled by women; now, they can serve in 70 per cent of roles. That means that women still cannot serve in 30 per cent. of service roles. I believe that most, but not all, of the roles in that 30 per cent. involve what might be called direct killing--which the Minister, in his speech, using a more polite term, called high-intensity war-fighting operations. Although I appreciate the sensitivity of the issue, I suspect that some of the attitudes of those who want to keep women out of those parts of the armed forces may be outdated. I am also worried that denying women the training necessary to fill those roles could hamper their long-term career prospects.
Both men and women should have a choice in whether they fill direct-killing roles. Men and women who wish to fill such a role should also undergo screening to ensure
that they are suitable. The issue should be kept under constant review, especially as all personnel--even those filling "basic" roles--need to have self-defence skills, such as tackling snipers and armed thugs. Any service man or woman could, unfortunately, be placed in a situation in which he or she has to kill someone. All service people have to have that training.I do not think that women should be excluded from the elite units. One old-fashioned argument--I think that it is old-fashioned--is that men in those units might hesitate to act if women were present, with perhaps fatal consequences. I do not accept that argument. Such a consequence could be avoided by a suitable training regime. The Israeli army, for example, has had women in combat roles for very many years. I do not accept that women should be automatically excluded from any service role.
Peacekeeping has been mentioned in the debate. Perhaps we should establish in our armed forces a gendarmerie or carabinieri-type force, which is half military and half police. Such a body could play an important part in the type of roles that we are now playing. It is not appropriate to expect simply to leave it to the French or Italians to play that role. The Government should conduct a proper review of that possibility and provide a report on it to the House.
I certainly welcome the Government's "Armed Forces Overarching Personnel Strategy" document, which states:
- An organisation the size of the Armed Forces (which employs over 200,000 people and which spends over £6 billion per annum on serving military personnel) should have a visionary statement setting out its approach to its people.
The document is a bit technical in parts, but, crucially, it deals with what it calls "tolerable variation", which it defines as
- Centre-led personnel policies which apply to two or more single Services, although elements of the application of the policies might vary in one or more Service.
Gaps must not appear as between the service and central personnel units, where each says that the other has responsibility. We need transparency, and the reasons for variations must be given in the public domain. I am in a small minority in this House, but I favour trade union representation for armed forces personnel, although without the strike option. That would be the best way forward.
We must continue to improve the complaints procedure, because the armed forces can get into trouble if complaints are not dealt with properly. The document deals with education policies, and my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) paid tribute to the Government's improvements, with national vocational qualifications and skills training. However, there is a need for substantial improvements in education policy. The armed forces may not think that this relates to their job,
but many people who come into the armed forces are unable to read and write. When they leave, they should be able to read and write, which is also important when orders are given. Overall, improvements are being made in education.The report signals individual areas, four of which in particular need detailed review: welfare; families; personal health; and health and safety policies. I hope that there will be a full-scale review of each of these matters, to follow up the "Armed Forces Overarching Personnel Strategy" policy document.
The veterans advice unit is to be welcomed, and I pay tribute to the Government for setting that up. I welcome also the bereaved families policy, which will be led from the centre. I hope that that will lead to a more sensitive and generous approach when there has been loss of life.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley said that those in the Falklands had to pay £1 a minute for telephone conversations with their loved ones. That is unacceptable, and although it has changed, it is still too high. The Government have increased the telephone allowance, which is now up to 20 free minutes a week for those serving in Bosnia and the Gulf. The figure was only three minutes when the Government came into office. The amount of time has been extended in Kosovo as well. I believe that it could be increased again--to 30 minutes, for example. The Select Committee has pointed out that the change in policy in Kosovo made
- a significant contribution to improved morale,
We need to develop the use of e-mail links. The Minister said that significant progress has been made, but I would like more. Other armed forces are doing more than we are, although we now have the electronic bluey so that messages can get directly to soldiers in theatre. There should be more. Wherever the armed forces deploy, there should be a well-stocked computer centre.
The Ministry of Defence should develop its own internet service provider--armedforces.co.uk--to give service personnel easy access to communication with their loved ones, in addition to telephone access. That would be a cheaper way of communicating, certainly in the long term.
The Government should consider issuing e-mail mobile phones to armed forces personnel. I understand that there is also a need for secure communication in certain circumstances. There is room for improvement. The previous Government had an even worse record on communications for basic operations. They made a mess of the Bowman contract. Technology moves on and the MOD must do better in keeping up with it without spending the earth.
The Government have a good story to tell overall on personnel policies for the armed forces. They have improved on the situation under the Conservative Government. They could do better still. With the overarching personnel strategy, they have a mechanism by which to do so.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |