| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Afghanistan
10. Kali Mountford (Colne Valley) (Lab): If he will make a statement on the role of the armed forces in Afghanistan. [163782]
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The United Kingdom has about 460 personnel deployed to Afghanistan. About 360 of those are serving with the international security assistance force—ISAF—which is assisting the Afghan transitional authority to maintain security in Kabul. The remainder are serving with the US-led coalition, including 90 deployed to the provincial reconstruction team in Mazar-e-Sharif. The team aims to assist in extending the authority of the Afghan Government in northern Afghanistan, to facilitate security sector reform and to create the conditions necessary to assist reconstruction.
Kali Mountford : I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. I am sure that the whole House recognises the important work done by our forces in Kabul and in ISAF. Will he update the House further on the work of provincial reconstruction teams, and in
particular on the protection of local personnel in elections and the protection of humanitarian aid? Is it not important that that work continues until local security and police forces are fully operational?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. The United Kingdom Government strongly support the need further to expand the international security assistance force beyond Kabul, and particularly to demonstrate our concern that the security situation, especially in the south, should not deteriorate. We therefore believe that NATO's plan for ISAF progressively to assume control of groups of regional PRTs presents the best way forward for security across the country. For that reason, the United Kingdom has indicated its willingness to build on the success of our provincial reconstruction team by, together with partner nations, playing a leading role in the expansion of ISAF, particularly, in the first place, into northern Afghanistan.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): I think that everyone wants to celebrate the professionalism of the British forces who have been working in Afghanistan. Nevertheless, a strategy that would apparently bring peace and security to the area around Kabul while allowing the return of the warlords and drug growers and, indeed, the re-formation of the Taliban throughout the vast majority of Afghanistan surely raises more questions than it answers. When will we actually see the war that was started in Afghanistan finished?
Mr. Hoon: As I just said, that is not the strategy. We are seeking to extend the impact of ISAF beyond Kabul, to other parts of Afghanistan. The provincial reconstruction teams are already achieving that, but we recognise the need to expand their number and range of activities.
I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's description of Afghanistan. Certainly there are security problems in the south, but elsewhere the security arrangements are very good. People are able to continue their ordinary way of life quite satisfactorily.
Mr. Keith Simpson (Mid-Norfolk) (Con): In answering this and earlier questions, the Secretary of State has rightly praised the role of our armed forces in Afghanistan, the Balkans and Iraq. I fear, however, that servicemen in Afghanistan and their families would have been amazed to hear what I imagine to have been an off-the-cuff comment from him. His statement that there is no overstretch in the armed forces flies in the face of all the evidence—the evidence of every previous Chief of the Defence Staff, most retired serving members of the armed forces and, indeed, those currently serving. What does he say to servicemen in Afghanistan and their families who rightly suggest that there is overstretch, and that it is getting worse?
Mr. Hoon: Perhaps the key indicator of overstretch, in the past at any rate, has been the retention rate. The hon. Gentleman is right: if there is significant overstretch, one of the consequences is that people believe they are no longer valued and leave the armed forces. The position today is the reverse, however. More people are staying
for longer, essentially because they appreciate the conditions under which Her Majesty's armed forces are operating and the challenge with which they are being presented.Formation Training Cycle
11. Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con): If he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the formation training cycle. [163783]
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): The formation readiness cycle is the means by which the Army prepares its six non-specialist brigades to meet commitments. It has served the Army well, giving the flexibility to deliver appropriately trained and prepared units to meet a variety of commitments, in accordance with the aims of the strategic defence review.
As we explained in the recent White Paper, we are examining possible changes to the current and future capabilities of the armed forces and supporting infrastructure that are required to deliver a network-enabled capability. Part of this work will be to consider the effect that those changes will have on the formation readiness cycle.
Mr. Blunt : The truth is that the formation readiness and training cycle has not been able to work because the Government have taken the Army into war four times in the past five years. Does the Minister really stand by the Secretary of State's comment that there is no overstretch? Is not the truth that there is a huge hollowing out of training in the armed forces because the formation training cycle cannot work? That is why the Chief of the Defence Staff says that we will not be ready to man Telic again until 2008–09.
Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman has raised an interesting point, which was covered in my reply. We need to examine the current operation of the formation readiness cycle to establish whether it is robust and meets the needs of the armed forces, and what should take its place if that is not the case. It is important for the whole training cycle, along with preparedness and deployability of forces, to accord with the proposed force restructuring. That will not happen overnight; it must be planned in the context of the changed force structure and the various requirements that will then confront us internationally and at home.
I take on board what the hon. Gentleman has said, although I do not necessarily accept all of it. I hope that my explanation has been sufficiently detailed.
Troop Deployments
12. Jane Griffiths (Reading, East) (Lab): If he will make a statement on the future deployment of UK troops stationed in Germany. [163784]
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): The 4th Armoured Brigade, currently based in Germany, has been earmarked for future deployment in Iraq, in November 2004, as part of Operation Telic. In addition, 26 Regiment Royal Artillery will deploy to
Cyprus in September 2004. A number of other supporting units based in Germany are likely to deploy to Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq and Northern Ireland in the course of the next 18 months.
Jane Griffiths : Norman Mailer once wrote a book called “Why are we in Vietnam?”, and I have been tempted to ask the Minister, why are we in Germany? However, I welcome his answer that there is to be more rational deployment, as I would describe it. When will the targets for redeployment finally be met, and when will the last British soldier leave Germany?
Mr. Ingram: There are a number of questions involved, and the issue of why we are in Germany is fundamentally different from that in Norman Mailer's book, “Why are we in Vietnam?” I suggest that Europe is somewhat different from the situation that Norman Mailer was looking at. We have a considerable amount of infrastructure in Germany, as does the US, and we have very good relationships with our German allies. My hon. Friend asks when the last troops will leave Germany, but I do not think that I can give her an answer. We have met the commitment laid down in the strategic defence review to withdraw certain posts—that is, a reduction of 2,100 posts by 2005. That target has been met, with the exception of the return of two Royal Tank regiments, involving 600 personnel, who are due to return in the third quarter of 2005, when they will be based in Tidworth. The delay in their transfer is due to the fact that the required living accommodation is not yet ready.
Hugh Robertson (Faversham and Mid-Kent) (Con): If the Secretary of State is right that there is no overstretch in the Army, why is it that the tour interval for Army infantry battalions in Germany, which was two years in the mid-1990s, is now down to nine months on average, and six months for some, including the 1st Battalion Irish Guards? They returned from Iraq, attended the state opening of Parliament, and were out in Northern Ireland a matter of months later.
Mr. Ingram: The answer is that those troops have been busy. We would not deny that fact, and that has put pressure on them. It has certainly put pressure on certain key enabler functions—[Interruption.] I notice the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) shouting that there has been overstretch. However, it might be worth while examining some of the decisions that he took when he was Minister for the armed forces, and some of the problems that we are now having to correct.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |