| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5.11 pm
Mr. Bill Wiggin (Leominster): I pay tribute to HMS Ledbury, which is named after the town in my constituency and did such a tremendous job in the Gulf clearing mines; to the light infantry, who also served in the Gulf; and to the special forces. It is a privilege to follow my gallant and hon. Friend Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer). I wish that the Government would listen to every word he says and follow his advice, but tragically I do not think they will.
Twenty years ago, when I passed my Regular Commissions Board exam, it was explained to me that the reason why officer training was so long and difficult was that to young officers was entrusted the British Army's most precious possession—in the case of a young platoon commander, the lives of 35 of the finest soldiers in the world bar none.
It is important that we remember that, because our armed services cannot say no. They cannot go on strike if they do not like being firemen. They have no choice. Probably the most tragic research that was thrown up before I put in to speak in the debate concerned the number of young men and women going absent without leave. That not only blemishes their reputation but reflects badly on a Government who put them in the position where they cannot bear it anymore and have to make a run for it.
The shortfall against the current trained requirement of the armed forces is 6,510. That sounds like a big number. There has been a reduction in the requirement of about 4,110 but it is difficult for Ministers in Whitehall to realise what that means to the men on the ground, whether they be training in a drill hall or on exercise. I had a troop of three armoured cars based in Croydon and only five troopers in that troop, which was enough for about one and a half armoured cars.
That was damaging to our ability to train. It meant that most of the time was spent doing maintenance to ensure that the three armoured cars were serviceable. It was not much fun for the soldiers or for me. We all suffered from being under strength, short of man hours and of the highly qualified trained soldiers who we needed. The Government have a duty to ensure that there are enough soldiers, sailors and airmen to enable those who are currently employed to be trained properly and to enjoy their jobs, as every person should be able to.
I hope that the Government will also look carefully at pay, and at the council tax that service people are required to pay when serving abroad. It is tempting to allow the Treasury to steer our defence commitments, but it was hard to look the fire brigade strikers and
protesters in the eye in the knowledge that the soldiers covering for them were paid half as much as those on the picket line. We must seriously reconsider how we value our armed forces. These are people who cannot say no.The recent court case about Gulf war syndrome has caused nothing but anguish to those who believe that they may be suffering from it and to their families. I understand why the Government do not recognise it, but I rather feel that it reflects more sadly on us than on those poor people who are suffering.
We also need to think about the accommodation that armed forces personnel live in. If 9 per cent. of it is so bad that the Ministry cannot charge rent, and charges only for utilities, there is clearly a great deal of room for improvement.
I know that any good Minister would want to address those issues, and I sincerely hope that the Minister will. The saddest statistic of all concerns Territorial Army reservists. In my short military career, I also had the privilege of being the platoon commander in Holyhead and in Caernarfon, and of my 35 soldiers at least seven had the surname Jones, so we had to use their numbers as well. They were fantastic people, and I cannot think of a happier time in my life than when I was serving with them, even though, because I do not speak fluent Welsh myself, they had the upper hand in that they could have pulled the wool over my eyes had they wanted to.
In a recent survey of TA personnel sent to the Gulf, 80 per cent. said that they did not expect their employer to support any future deployment; 63 per cent. of medical and technical staff said that they were thinking of resigning from the TA; 73 per cent. said that the NHS would lose vital skills because of the deployment; and 39 per cent. were worried about the effect on their job security. If that is how this Government are leaving the armed forces, there is a great distance to go.
5.17 pm
Mr. Mark Francois (Rayleigh): I would like to make a few brief points as someone who served during the cold war as a Territorial Army officer in what was then the fifth battalion of the Royal Anglian Regiment. I declare my interest, as it were.
The problem of overstretch has been touched on many times today, and we are all aware of it. There has also been much discussion about recruitment and a little about retention. I repeat the point that I have made in previous defence debates, that retention is as important as recruitment, because the net figure, the difference between inflow and outflow, is crucial in determining how many boots are ultimately available on the ground—to use the buzz phrase. It is one thing to talk about how good we can be at recruiting, but the acid test is how good the Army is at retaining.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) set out clearly the rumour circulating in the Army that there are proposals for a reduction in the number of regular infantry battalions. Nothing is set in concrete, but it would appear that there is at least a suggestion that this might come to pass. With all the pressure that exists on the tour plot, and all the demands made on our regular Army, and in particular the infantry battalions—Iraq is a classic example—there can be no logic whatever in seeking to reduce the number that would be available for service around the
globe. The demand is tremendous: even earlier today we had a statement that a limited number of troops were being deployed to the Congo, and for all we know that military commitment could grow in time. So there is an example of how our armed forces continue to be in great demand around the world, even today. That being so, there is surely no logic whatsoever in reducing the number of regular infantry units available for deployment, whatever the cap badge or battalion involved.I want to refer very briefly to what happened earlier when I attempted to intervene on the Minister of State. I was simply trying to get him to clarify something that he said in response to an earlier intervention by the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell). The Minister began by saying that there are no plans to abolish the Royal Anglian Regiment, and I am clearly delighted about that. However, when the hon. Gentleman pressed the Minister further, asking whether there were any plans to abolish the second battalion, I thought I heard the Minister say that there are no plans to abolish the Royal Anglian battalions; in other words, he seemed to answer in the plural. However, his voice fell away slightly, and I was not sure whether Hansard picked that up. I was therefore trying to intervene to get the Minister to clarify whether he had answered in the plural, rather than the singular. I hope that that assists the Under-Secretary who is present, and that he understands why I was trying to intervene.
We do not want to lose any regular units; we do not want to play one cap badge off against another. But as someone who served in the Royal Anglians, I hope that it is fair for me to point out that, at a time when the Army is having difficulty in retaining people, the Royal Anglians' two regular battalions have an excellent record not just in recruiting soldiers, but in retaining them in service. So by any statistical or meritocratic comparison, both of those battalions have done very well in facing a problem that some other regiments have found particularly challenging. On any merit-based criterion, they should not suffer if any of these pressures come to pass. But I reiterate: we do not want to lose any regular battalions of any cap badge.
I end by urging the Under-Secretary to understand that the Royal Anglian Regiment is regarded with great affection within East Anglia. I very much hope that the proposal simply fades away, and that the suggestion does not get really serious. But it is only fair to tell him in all sincerity that if the proposal becomes a reality and one of our two regular battalions appears to be seriously under threat, it is very likely that Ministers will face considerable anger in East Anglia. I say that without any side or spin, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will accept it in the spirit in which it is offered. I now conclude to make way for the Front-Bench spokesmen.
5.22 pm
Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot): As has become customary in these debates, we have had some extremely well-informed contributions, and some very interesting observations from Members on both sides of the House. I am bound to say, however, that it has been demonstrated beyond doubt that behind me is a very large reservoir of experienced military hands, who bring a great deal of valuable information and military experience to the House, at a time when so few of us have such experience.
I am sorry that the Minister of State, who pointed out that he is detained on other duties, was unable to remain with us. I am told that he has not beaten a retreat from the House but is actually beating the retreat on Horseguards Parade. So he is fulfilling his ministerial duties over there, and has beaten a retreat neither from the Government nor the House—as yet.
I want to join all those who have congratulated our armed forces on the magnificence of their operations in Iraq; they have truly made this nation proud of what they have achieved in our name. Members were also right to refer to the contribution made by their families. This House has been keen to recognise the role that the families played in supporting their loved ones who were out there. Speaking of my own constituency and the Aldershot garrison, I should like to pay tribute to the garrison commander, Colonel Stephen Oxlade, and his team; I saw what they were doing to support the families at home. I should also like to thank the Prime Minister and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales for coming to Aldershot, as well as to other garrison towns throughout the country, to demonstrate their support for the families.
Reports have demonstrated that much of the equipment deployed in Iraq worked extremely well—mention has been made of Storm Shadow, the AS 90 and Challenger 2—which is extremely encouraging. I suspect that some of that success may have been due to cannibalisation, and that there was frantic making up of kit that was cannibalised in order to support the front line.
It is important to recognise, as the nation has done, the difference between how UK forces operated in Basra and how US forces operated in Baghdad. I make no criticism of the US: Baghdad was considerably more difficult. However, what was clearly demonstrated was the capacity of our armed forces to switch, almost overnight, from ferocious, high-intensity war fighting to winning the hearts and minds of the local population. That is greatly to the credit of our armed forces.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) reminded us that the campaign was not conducted without loss of life. I am sure that the whole House pays tribute to families who have lost loved ones in this cause. We thank them for providing men and women who were prepared to serve their country and make the final sacrifice. My hon. Friend also mentioned the value of the cadet forces. As president of the Aldershot Air Training Corps, I am bound to agree that they serve a great function in our country. My hon. Friend was absolutely right about that.
The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) was right to remind us that the war is not yet finished, in the sense that the military victory may have been secured, but the ultimate objective of restoring peace, order and prosperity to Iraq has not. We still have a long way to go in that respect.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) referred to the performance of the Royal Air Force. The RAF contributed 7.5 per cent. of the missions flown by the coalition forces in inhospitable fighting conditions, and I pay tribute to our pilots and those who supported them on the ground for performing so well and to such great effect. We should
also recall that as well as serving in the recent campaign, they have for the past 12 years policed the no-fly zones, putting themselves in harm's way for 365 days a year.The Minister was fair in recognising that the success of the campaign should not be allowed to obscure any shortcomings revealed in the war and the fundamental personnel issues that arise from overstretch. There is a sense in some quarters that we actually got away with it. To some extent, that is right. Nevertheless, our armed forces secured the objective. I spoke to a senior officer earlier this week, who said that there is always a risk of coming second—and when that happens, it will be a time of great tribulation for the nation. We must not take our armed forces for granted.
Many have warned the Government, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) at the outset, that their policy of "just in time" could become "just too late". Air Marshal Burridge made that point yesterday when he referred to problems with boots and flak jackets. Clearly, asset-tracking has been a problem: kit has been prepared and exported from the UK, but failed to reach its destination at the front. The Ministry of Defence must pay close attention to that.
The International Criminal Court is an issue now coming to the fore. Will the Minister tell us the Government's view of attempts to haul those responsible for the conduct of the campaign before the ICC? General Tommy Franks is exempt, because the US has not signed up. There is no such luck for Admiral Boyce who was Chief of the Defence Staff when the campaign was under way—[Interruption.] The Minister rumbles in his traditional fashion, but that is a serious point. Many reports suggest that it could happen, and many learned voices in the United Kingdom have given their view that the war was illegal. It is important that the House and the public should know the Government's view of the possible intervention of the ICC in that respect.
Much mention has been made of overstretch and I shall not neglect the issue. Since the Government took office in 1997, it seems as if our armed forces have been permanently preparing for, on, or recovering from, operations. There have been three major conflicts—the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq—and countless minor ones in Africa, East Timor, the middle east, the Balkans and, as we have heard today, now the Congo. Despite the heavy demand on our forces, the statistics show a substantial cut in the trained strength of our armed forces since 1997. The reduction amounts to nearly 9,000 and to try to camouflage those cuts, the Government have fiddled the requirements, which—despite their frenetic military activity—they have reduced since 1997 by no fewer than 10,500. If reports are to be believed, they are threatening to reduce those figures still further, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newark pointed out.
Three years ago, the then Minister for the armed forces assured the then shadow Minister—now my noble Friend Lord King of Bridgwater—that the Army's manning target would be achieved by 2005, which was a delay of 12 months on the previous target date. The manning figure has risen by fewer than 1,800
since then. At that rate of increase, today's shortfall of nearly 5,000 will not be made good by 2005, but by 2010. The Government must seriously address that issue.The practical effect was that we did not have enough troops to cover for the firemen and for the possible conflict in Iraq. It is just as well that the firefighters did not strike during that conflict, because it is questionable whether we had enough cover. Servicemen and women certainly felt much resentment that they were called on to cover firefighters, when that was not what they had been trained to do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newark said that the tangible face of overstretch was seen in the cancellation of post-operational tour leave. I can vouch for that. The Welsh Guards in Aldershot spent six months in Bosnia, came back to Aldershot and were told that they had to go on Operation Fresco to cover for the firefighters. They were livid. It was a breach of the contract that the MOD has with our armed forces to require them to do that, and it was a manifestation of overstretch.
Specialist arms are also being called on. For example, the Royal Engineers will be dispatched to the Congo. They have been called on frequently to do tours, almost back-to-back, and are almost permanently deployed. That is fine, and great fun, for the young men, but for the not quite so young men, with family responsibilities, it is much more difficult.
What is the score on fast-jet pilots? Do we have enough? We had a shortfall and the Government had to introduce special measures to attract fast-jet pilots into the Royal Air Force. As recently as last year, a survey—published in February this year—said that 88 per cent. of officers and airmen believe that overstretch is causing serious problems for the RAF as a whole. That is what the services believe about the situation that they face. Overstretch is a serious problem and the Government must do something about it. The real issue is that they are not prepared to maintain the critical mass necessary to conduct all the operations on which they wish to embark.
The Government have promised to produce their definitive study of the pension issue before the summer recess. As I recall, it was promised before last year's summer recess, but it still has not arrived. The review was intended to be cost-neutral, but new benefits will be introduced for certain beneficiaries—for example, unmarried partners—which will mean that core benefits for the majority will be worse than before. Is that a fair reward for people who are more stretched and over-committed than ever before? The Government cannot be allowed to get away with giving second-rate benefits to our armed forces at a time when they are calling on them to do so much for our country.
Much has been made in the debate of the question of reservists. The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) was right to say that reservists were being relied on increasingly by the Government to make up shortfalls in the regulars. My hon.—and indeed gallant—Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) made an extremely impressive speech. If Ministers were unable to absorb it all as he made it, I recommend that they read it, as my hon. Friend dealt with the real difficulties facing our Defence Medical Services. The chairman of the British Medical Association warned in January that there might not be enough medical services to cope with
a campaign in Iraq. As it happens, it did not turn out that way, but that was a matter of good fortune, as we did not suffer the number of casualties that many people expected. However, if we were to embark on a conflict with casualty figures that turned out higher, would we have the medical staff to support our armed forces in the field?There is an impression that it is the regulars who are coming home. Frimley Park hospital, just outside my constituency, is fully manned, but it is the reservists who are being kept out in Iraq. I have written to the Minister about a dentist who runs a practice with his wife in the north-west of England. He has been told that he will be out there for eight and a half months, and the Minister has put as much in writing for me. It is intolerable that reservists should be put upon in that way. It is therefore not surprising that statistics such as those supplied by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) are coming forth.
I turn now to veterans, as it is important for us to bear in mind those who will be retiring from the services, as well as those who are serving today. We are not doing enough for the veterans. I was privileged to travel to the Falkland Islands last year with Rick Jolly, the surgeon who organised that life-saving red and green machine at Ajax bay. I travelled with 200 veterans. A Labour Member was supposed to accompany us, but he had to stay behind and do duty as hostage at Buckingham palace for the state opening of Parliament and was unable to come. It was a very moving experience to be with so many people who are genuine heroes of our country, and to stand on Mount Longdon with three of my constituents. One of them had no throat, another had lost a leg, and the third had received the Distinguished Conduct medal for evacuating about 30 wounded from the mountain. That really brings home what our armed forces have achieved, and the heroism that they have displayed, in fighting for our country.
However, what came across most clearly was that those men could not talk even to their wives about their experiences. The nation has to recognise the debt that it owes to those people. Today's armed forces form a very small section of society. After world war two, troops returned home from the battle front to communities that understood the nature and horror of war. Indeed, people in the east end of London and in Liverpool and Coventry had experienced it, yet the rest of us carry on today as normal—going to the pub, watching football, and so on.
We must recognise that there are very serious problems. For example, it is suggested that something like 25 per cent. of London's homeless people are ex-servicemen. I understand too that the number of suicides among veterans of the first Gulf war is five times the number of casualties sustained in the campaign itself. That is the magnitude of the difficulties that we face.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) made a good speech, much of which I agreed with. He drew attention to the existence of SSAFA and to the work of the Royal British Legion. Last Friday, I visited an excellent organisation called Combat Stress, about which I want to tell the House. It is a charitable organisation, half of whose funds are derived from fundraising activities, which sees something like 700 cases a year. Its residential
accommodation provides 82 beds, and it looks after people who are the victims of war, injured not in limb but in mind. Outwardly, they look as though there is nothing wrong with them, but they are every bit as damaged as those without a leg, an arm or an eye. The charity tells me that there should be much closer co-operation between in-service treatment and veterans' organisations and, especially, that we need to care for such people outside the traditional centres of care in the national health service.I suspect that the Treasury and some civil servants at the Ministry of Defence do not accept that servicemen are different and that NHS treatment is not appropriate. Those men and women should be treated among their peers—the only people who can fully understand the difficulties that they face and the traumas that they have experienced. I know that the Under-Secretary is trying to do something on that front, and I welcome what he is doing for troops returning home. That is good news. Will he look into the work of Combat Stress and give the organisation a fair wind and some financial support? I resent bitterly the fact that £200 million is being wasted on the Saville inquiry into events that took place 33 years ago, yet men and women who have served this country, who have put their lives on the line for this country and who are suffering in mind now, do not receive the attention that they deserve.
In conclusion, the fundamental problem with the Government's defence policy is that, whatever their rhetoric, they fail to appreciate the real value of their largest resource—the people. Her Majesty's armed forces are not an organisation to which one can apply the mechanisms and tests appropriate to industry. They are a unique organisation whose remarkable success is founded on a set of enduring values, which are not widely replicated elsewhere in today's society. If the Government and the people of this country want to continue to take pride in the success of our armed forces on the battlefield, they must will the means to secure the continuation of that success. That means maintaining force levels sufficient to address the threat to the UK and our wider interests around the world; recognising that reserves are really reserves and not semi-permanent stand-ins because there are not enough regulars; recognising that the frequency of operations is seriously damaging the training cycle; amending the just-in-time policy so that there is sufficient equipment, fit for purpose, to give confidence to our troops; accepting that transferring duties to the private sector has its limits; and, finally, accepting that those who have been injured, whether in mind or body, in the service of our country deserve the best treatment that the world's fourth-largest economic power can provide.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |