| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Simpson: My hon. Friend is right and he leads me to the point that the problem is not new in the Ministry of Defence. We can argue about the amount of extra money that the Chancellor gave the Ministry last year. Most people in the military, including MOD civil servants, say that we are considering a standstill budget, perhaps with slight increases.
Angus Robertson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with his party leader that privatising the defence fire Service would be a "privatisation too far"? Does it remain Conservative party policy to oppose the privatisation of the defence fire service?
Mr. Simpson: Yes, I think it is, on the ground that the defence fire service is deployed overseas on operations, which makes it uniquely different.
The pressures that are now placed on the Government mean that they are going to try to make savings in manpower to pay for the new programmes that they wish to introduce for network-centric warfare. That, again, will exacerbate the situation in terms of the
retention of some of the best people in our armed forces. I would be interested to hear whether the Minister has any new views on that.General Lord Guthrie, Chief of the Defence Staff from 1997 to 2001, is an eloquent guardsman and a man with experience of military service at every possible level. He is also, in his own way—I say this in the most positive sense—a true Whitehall warrior, in that he understands the politics of defence and foreign policy. In a debate in the House of Lords last year, he said:
- "Recruiting targets are not being met; ships and regiments are not properly manned; training is being reduced; and equipment is ageing and often not available. So far as defence is concerned, there has been, in effect, disinvestment. All this, I remind noble Lords, has been happening at a time when to many of us it appears that the threats to our security are becoming ever greater."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 May 2002; Vol. 635, c. 311.]
I want to mention a number of issues just briefly, because I know that several colleagues wish to speak. The Minister rightly praised the role of our Territorial Army and our reservists. Under the strategic defence review, they are absolutely crucial for expeditionary warfare and humanitarian aid. That is not an either/or. In response to a point made about the attitude of employers, the Minister rightly said that many people still think of members of the Territorial Army as weekend soldiers who are static-based in the United Kingdom. We cannot perform the kind of roles that are now required without the Territorial Army; that is a fact. In addition, since 11 September, they are also to be required to play a major role in a new form of home security force to be set up in the autumn—we look forward to hearing details—to help to deal with the impact of any major terrorist incident here.
Many of us have been overwhelmed by comments from members of the Territorial Army and from employers about a series of organisational failures by the Ministry of Defence in relation to their call-up, and their pay and allowances. That is going to happen when we call up large numbers of men and women. However, I should have thought that, despite the size of the call-up, we could have had better systems in place by now. After all, we called up large numbers of people for Kosovo, and smaller numbers for Afghanistan. We have also had training exercises of one kind or another. I look forward to hearing from the Minister in the early autumn about the measures that are being put in place to ensure that these problems do not arise again.
It has come across loud and clear—as my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) said—that, unfortunately, many members of our territorial armed forces will think of leaving. Some have already told me that they intend to do so. Unless we catch this quickly, large numbers of employers, when interviewing someone for a job, could well have a negative view of that man or woman if they have a reserve commitment.
Ministers know only too well that the Territorial Army is not an add-on; it is crucial to their expeditionary warfare.
Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk): My hon. Friend and I share a significant defence interest: he has Swanton Morley in his constituency; I have a lot of people from RAF Marham living in mine. Is he aware that one of the main concerns among territorials and regulars across the board is the tidal wave of political correctness that is going through the whole of our armed forces? Does he agree that the time has come for us to exempt our armed forces from the provisions of human rights legislation?
Mr. Simpson: The tidal wave of legislation does not refer just to that. It also refers to the mass of targets, rules and regulations that apply not only to members of the armed forces but to our teachers and doctors and to the police. Many people in the Ministry of Defence are overwhelmed by bureaucracy largely brought in by the Treasury and implemented by the Ministry.
The Defence Medical Services have played a crucial role in previous large-scale operations, and they did so again in the Gulf. Fortunately, this time round, they were hardly used at all. Two issues have been identified from their deployment. The first is that large numbers of doctors in the regular armed forces were taken away from their jobs with their military units and effectively put into transit camps, but not used. A number of them have told me that they are now thinking of handing in their papers. Secondly, there were major problems with TA medics, many from the national health service, getting leave of absence. Ministers are going to have to get that right in future operations.
Mr. Keetch: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said. Does he agree, however, that the work done at the Birmingham Defence Medical Services centre has been outstanding? I know from some of my own constituents who were injured in action that they received excellent treatment there. Like all our armed forces, when these services are called upon to act, they do so in an excellent manner. The hon. Gentleman is right about the reservists, but the Defence Medical Services centre in Birmingham is providing an excellent facility.
Mr. Simpson: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Once again, that is the result of a can-do mentality. But a number of military personnel—both at operational level and among the medics—have said that we have been fortunate, in that the operations in which we have been involved have been short and sharp, and have not, thank God, involved large-scale casualties. We cannot assume that that will always be the case.
I welcome what the Minister said about the approach to pay and conditions, but I would like to highlight one factor that I know many hon. Members found appalling and which upset soldiers, sailors and airmen who were deployed during the firemen's strike. It cannot be right that the pay of a basic soldier risking his life in a fire dispute is 50 per cent. less than that of the fireman whom he is replacing. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the dispute, to many people, that seemed obscene and did more than anything else to highlight the pay of our soldiers at the bottom end of the scale.
I heard what the Minister said about our armed forces' total package. It sounds and looks good when compared with others internationally, but I would urge him once again to consider the possibility that when our armed forces are deployed on operations overseas, a way might be found of negotiating with the Treasury to ensure that they do not have to pay income tax during that period. That would be a small but positive indication, in financial terms, of how much we appreciate what they are doing.
The Armed Forces Pay Review Body has reported problems in service family accommodation and single-living accommodation while the MOD's Defence Housing Executive has said that it will be unable to meet its target to upgrade all core UK service family accommodation stock to standard 1 conditions by November 2005. No new targets have been set. Can the Minister tell us why?
Overstretch and working conditions take us back to what we heard at the beginning of the debate. There is no doubt that, from all the information we have, the average number of hours worked across the three services increased from 48.1 a week in 2000–01 to 54.5 a week in 2001–02 while the number of hours on duty increased from 75.1 to 89.5 a week. The point about that is that our armed forces have unlimited liability and they cannot strike. On the whole, however, they have a can-do mentality, so if they are told to be at Brize Norton by the end of the afternoon, they get there.
Eventually, however, if the stress and strain on people's lives, working conditions and families become too great, they will not stay. No matter how many people we get in through the front door, the problem, as the Minister knows only too well, is that we are losing people who have been trained and who have something to give the services after eight, nine or 10 years. That means we face a major difficulty.
The debate is about armed forces personnel. Conservative Members believe that the morale of our armed forces depends not just on the package that Ministers put forward, but on the constraints put in place by Government policy on commitments, the force structure and the working conditions that the Government provide for our armed forces.
The reduction in the armed forces has reached the point of critical mass. Field Marshal Lord Vincent, when Chief of the Defence Staff, reckoned that the Army would start seriously to lose its capability in many areas if it fell much below 100,000 men and women, as a lot of things just could not be done. We have not reached that stage yet, but we are close to it. If the figure drops below that, the Government will be forced not to do certain things. Alternatively, we will put our men and women in the firing line where they will be taking a risk too far. Instead of being just in time, it will be just too late.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |