| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Army Strength
8. Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire): What the current strength is of the Army. [122646]
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): The current strength of United Kingdom trained Army personnel as at 1 April 2000--the latest figures available--is 96,475, an increase of some 175 since 1 April 1999.
Mr. Paterson: That answer does not tell us what the adjutant-general told the Select Committee on Defence--that it will take 31 years to reach the target set by the strategic defence review. Will the Minister tell us three practical measures that he has taken that will accelerate this woeful progress?
Mr. Spellar: Yes, I can tell the hon. Gentleman of more than three practical measures. Let me say first, however, that an increase of 175 is a considerable improvement on previous figures, when there has been a steady run-down of forces numbers. That increase is a movement in the right direction.
Rightly, we are looking at the problems of retention. Many of those are down to communication with families. That is particularly the case in a time of full employment when other options are available. That is why we increased the time that can be taken to make telephone calls from three to 20 minutes a week. However, there is no point in having additional time if the telephones are not of an adequate quality. That is why we have introduced Project Welcome, which is of enormous benefit to our troops. When I was in Kosovo last week, the improvements were widely recognised. Similarly, in Sierra Leone we responded within two weeks.
Secondly, there is an increase in leave at the end of an operational tour so that personnel can spend more time with their families. There is also the bonus for those who have been on an extended operational tour. We have seen the introduction of e-mail--[Interruption.] It is interesting that Conservative Members can sit comfortably in the Chamber and be dismissive of improving communications between our service men and women and their families. That will be noted. Our troops work in difficult conditions and do a tremendous job, and Conservative Members could not give a damn.
Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston): My hon. Friend will recall that the Cheshire Regiment was one of the first to go into Bosnia some years ago. At the same time, the Staffordshire Regiment was located in the Dale Army camp in Cheshire. This situation brought to my attention a number of issues that my hon. Friend has raised, and especially the provision of telephones. I am pleased that that particular issue has been addressed.
The interesting feature in terms of the Staffordshire Regiment was the lack of support that the Army was then receiving in dealing with social problems--for example, children's special requirements. Will my hon. Friend assure me that he is taking action to ensure that there is
proper co-ordination so that the social support that Army families are entitled to receive will be available to them, unlike the provision under the previous Administration?
Mr. Spellar: As I have reported previously, there has been a considerable improvement in a number of areas that have been raised by the Army Families Federation so that we might improve conditions in the United Kingdom and those that apply to overseas postings, especially where the peculiar nature of service life and the demands that we put on service personnel and their families lead to their being disadvantaged when compared with the rest of the community. The feedback is that these improvements are having a considerable impact and beneficial effects on family life for service personnel.
We recognise that, with our increasingly expeditionary armed forces, television, telephones and e-mail--all of which the Opposition dismiss in their comfort--matter considerably to personnel. These facilities contribute very much to the greater welfare of our forces as part of the welfare package.
Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough): One of the consequences of the historic reduction in the size of the Army is that the Ministry of Defence has been able to dispense with and sell both land and property. One such example in my constituency is the town of South Wigston, where the Ministry, through Defence Estates, is getting rid of some real estate. However, before the contract has been completed, the residential developer has moved on to the site and is destroying trees and woods, for example, much to my concern and that of my constituents. Will the Minister please look into this matter to ensure that the developer is not doing what he should not before he has proper possession of the land? I do not expect the hon. Gentleman to give me a detailed answer now, but I would be most grateful if he wrote to me quickly.
Madam Speaker: Order. That question hardly relates to the original Question. Minister, I am sure that you will give not an answer but a commitment to consider the matter. Is that right?
Mr. Spellar: How Neanderthal are Conservative Members? They have not even heard of e-mail. It would have been helpful to have notice of the supplementary question of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier). However, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who deals with Defence Estates, has taken note of the question. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will provide him with details, my hon. Friend will be more than pleased to take up the matter.
Nuclear Weapons Proliferation
9. Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West): What assessment he has made of the potential threat posed by the proliferation of nuclear weapons. [122647]
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): We assess that there is no significant threat to the UK from nuclear weapons at present, but developments continue to be monitored closely. We remain committed
to limiting the proliferation of nuclear weapons through our international treaty obligations and national programmes.
Mr. Swayne: Despite the Secretary of State's assessment of the threat, does he agree that our best deterrent against the aggressive use of nuclear weapons remains our nuclear capability? If so, how does that sit with the policy, to which the Foreign Office has signed up, of a nuclear-free world? Would the Foreign Office policy have delivered the successful conclusion of the cold war?
Mr. Hoon: I agree, perhaps surprisingly, with the hon. Gentleman's first proposition, but the non-proliferation treaty agreement--the process towards which we conducted negotiations on behalf of the entire Government and into which previous Governments, including the Government that he no doubt supported, entered--is an aspiration; it is not likely to produce results in the short term. Nevertheless, I hope that the entire House would welcome circumstances in which the world was rid of nuclear weapons.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley): How concerned is my right hon. Friend, therefore, by reports, chiefly from Richard Butler, the former head of UNSCOM in Iraq, that Saddam Hussein may be starting to rebuild his arsenal of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons?
Mr. Hoon: The Government are concerned about that, which is why we, together with our allies, have spent so much time trying to achieve an international situation in which Iraq accepts the paramount importance of permitting the inspection of facilities inside Iraq as a means of restoring Iraq to the international community. We have made it clear that an effective inspection regime is a prerequisite of any such restoration.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon): On what possible moral basis can we argue against the proliferation of nuclear weapons, when we insist on having them ourselves? If the Secretary of State believes in a nuclear-free world, should not the Government give a lead in that direction, as his own leader advocated in the 1980s, when the situation was much more dangerous?
Mr. Hoon: In the strategic defence review, we carefully set out the importance of nuclear weapons to the United Kingdom, as long as other countries retain them. Nothing has changed in the interim, but in New York the Government, together with other Governments such as that of the United States, recognised that, as an aspiration in a civilised world, it would be sensible--if we could achieve it--to rid the entire world of nuclear weapons.
Royal Navy Auxiliary Vessels
11. Mr. Ben Chapman (Wirral, South): When he will announce decisions on orders for auxiliary vessels for the Royal Navy. [122649]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): An invitation to tender was issued to five UK companies in early April to bid for the contract to supply two alternative landing ships logistic,
which will support amphibious operations by carrying troops and their equipment into theatre. We expect to place the contract before the end of this year. In addition, we hope to announce a decision on the provision of a strategic sealift service later this year.
Mr. Chapman: Is my hon. Friend aware that some yards, including Cammell Laird, felt obliged to withdraw from the tendering process for the ALSLs because they thought that the points system did not allow them to compete fairly? Is he satisfied that the tendering process was fair and right? Is he also satisfied that the tendering process for the ro-ro vessels will be equally fair and right, that it will give UK yards every chance to bid successfully for those vessels, and that it will do so equitably between the yards?
Dr. Moonie: I can confirm that our tendering process is fair and right. It is always disappointing when companies feel unable to remain in the process, but we cannot as a rule devise our specifications on that basis. With regard to roll on/roll off ferries, I confirm that no decision has yet been taken on who will be awarded the contract, and bids from the four consortiums involved are still being assessed by the Ministry of Defence. As my right hon. Friend has already announced, the intention is to place the contract later this year.
Mr. Nicholas Soames (Mid-Sussex): Is the hon. Gentleman entirely satisfied with the process used by the Ministry of Defence for the tendering for and the procurement of vessels for the hydrographer's department? Will he examine the process, and let me know whether he believes that it was thorough and entirely fair not only to the yards that tendered, but to the owners who wanted to become involved?
Dr. Moonie: So far as I know, that is the case--but I shall happily consider the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Quentin Davies (Grantham and Stamford): Can the hon. Gentleman give an example of any other EU or NATO country that has placed orders for naval vessels, naval auxiliary vessels or roll on/roll off ferries with military application--if he can find such an example--other than with their own shipyards?
Dr. Moonie: It appears that the pro-European member of the Opposition Front-Bench team has caught the disease from the shadow Secretary of State; every time he stands up, he is becoming more anti-European by degrees. I confirm that all ships with a military application are sourced in this country; those without are subjected--as is correct--to the EC tendering process.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |