| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
David Wright (Telford) (Lab): I spent some time with the forces through the parliamentary scheme over the last year, and I discovered that they are incredibly professional in their outlook. I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments about overstretch, which is highly important. Does he have any proposals to deal with the problem? Is he proposing to increase funding for the armed forces?
Mr. Simpson: Sometimes, just occasionally, a Back Bencher can provide the opening that one has been looking for. If the hon. Gentleman wants to discuss the defence budget, I would refer him to the permanent secretary's evidence before the Select Committee yesterday. The Treasury said that the Ministry of Defence had, in fact, been incompetent in its handling of the defence budget. We are starting from such an appalling baseline that Sir Kevin Tebbit admitted that it would be wrong for him to say that the Ministry had enough money. The Labour Chairman of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), urged the MOD to stand up to the Treasury, saying:
"It may not be a crisis to you, but it looks like a crisis to us".
The hon. Member for Telford (David Wright) is absolutely right, and an incoming Conservative Government will have to look at the books—
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab): Pathetic.
Mr. Simpson: I hear an old lag on the Front Bench shouting "Pathetic" from a sedentary position, so I suggest that he looks at the MOD's resource accounting and budgeting report, which the National Audit Office has not been able to sign off yet. We have written to the Secretary of State on countless occasions, but he has been unable to provide any answers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin) rose—
Mr. Simpson: I see the Under-Secretary wants to come to the rescue.
Mr. Caplin: As the hon. Gentleman is dealing with the financial position, is he aware that his colleague, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), last week committed his party from the Dispatch Box to £661 million of extra public spending in year one of any—highly unlikely—future Conservative Government?
Mr. Simpson:
If we look up there, we can see a line of new Labour pigs flying past. I was here, which the Under-Secretary appears to have forgotten. Supposedly, one figure was produced and then, literally on the back of a fag packet, another. Please, let us get real about this. The armed forces are now facing a £1
13 May 2004 : Column 535
billion budget deficit, so it is up to Ministers, who so far this afternoon have failed to answer most of the questions put to them, to come up with some answers.
Mr. Simpson: I have given way more than enough. I have been very generous and I would think that you, Madam Speaker, would—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is entirely in the gift of the Opposition spokesperson to decide whether or not to give way.
Mr. Simpson: You put it so charmingly, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Across the board, whether in the regular or reserve forces, there are significant manning problems, particularly with specialist groups of one sort or another. I have already touched briefly on the problem of retention. Many of us are concerned about the morale of the armed forces because the White Paper and the work strands seem to be placing emphasis on even smaller—in terms of numerical strength—armed forces. I suspect that the hon. Member for Telford would agree that if the Army is reduced to much below 100,000 it will be incredibly difficult to recruit and maintain certain specialist areas. With greater emphasis on special forces, that will put an even greater strain on a fine group of men and women who now have to be supported very heavily by the reserve forces.
I wish to end by saying a few brief words—as did the Minister of State—about families. I have special words of praise for the various service family support organisations, which do so much to keep families in touch with their military loved ones who may be on active service. Those groups tirelessly lobby Ministers and Chiefs of Staff on everything from pay and allowances, through accommodation to children's education.
On Monday I met Lizzie Iron, the outgoing chairman of the Army families federation, who briefed me on the issues that concern her members. Ministers will be aware that concerns have been exacerbated by the increased years of often unaccompanied duty and by fears about what the White Paper may produce. Uncertainty increases anxiety, so I hope that Ministers will be able to reassure families that, following the implementation of the White Paper, their spouses' jobs are more secure and that—to use a hackneyed old phrase—things can only get better. I do not recall whether it was the Prime Minister or the Prime Minister-in-waiting who said that—or was it the Chancellor of the Exchequer? These days, it is so difficult to know who the real leader of the Labour party is.
13 May 2004 : Column 536
The SDR and the defence White Paper recognise, as I know that Ministers do, the real added value as a force multiplier—to use that awful terminology—of our high-quality armed forces. Their professionalism, skills and adaptability have been built up and maintained over decades by successive Governments and are the envy of many other countries and armed forces. However, the pace and frequency of operations place an increasing strain on them and their families. Cuts in time spent at home or on regrouping and training can eventually affect operational effectiveness. We should not assume that our armed forces, at this pace, can continue always to deliver what we expect from them.
Leaks from inside the Ministry of Defence, and evidence presented to the Defence Select Committee about the likely conclusions of the 16 work strands, indicate cuts in the size of the armed forces and a smaller critical mass.
Richard Younger-Ross: I am not sure, but the hon. Gentleman seems to be proposing two alternatives. He rightly identifies that the stresses and strains on families are leading to problems of retention. That problem can be overcome either by increasing the size of the armed forces or by not undertaking as many operations. I remember that Conservative Members supported the war in Iraq, whereas Liberal Democrat Members did not. Which alternative does the hon. Gentleman prefer? Should we cut the number of operations or increase the resources?
Mr. Simpson: In the end, we might have to reconfigure our armed forces. [Interruption.] The Minister of State laughs, but I am always prepared to tell him which work strand is considering that option at this precise moment. However, as happened with the ICRC report, he may not have seen what that strand is doing, or been made aware of it.
If we degrade that added value, we face the prospect that our armed forces may not be able to deliver the very high standard of operational effectiveness that they, and we, would wish for. It is on them, as much as on technology, that we rely for our defence and security.
ROYAL ASSENT
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
National Insurance Contributions and Statutory Payments Act 2004
Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2004
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
London Local Authorities Act 2004.
13 May 2004 : Column 535
13 May 2004 : Column 537
Armed Forces Personnel
Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I advise the House that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 10-minute time limit on Back Bench speeches. I call Rachel Squire.
4.33 pm
Rachel Squire (Dunfermline, West) (Lab): I begin by presenting the apologies of the Chairman of the Defence Select Committee, who is unable to be here today.
People are the armed forces' most important asset. However much the technology of military operations may have advanced in recent years, it is on the professionalism, training and individual courage of service men and women that their effective conduct depends. I want to begin by paying tribute to the members of the armed services, and to their families.
For the Defence Committee, personnel issues have always been important. Whenever the Committee visits British forces in the UK or overseas, members make a point of trying to talk to forces personnel of all ranks. The Committee reports regularly and considers the impact of policies and operations on personnel, as is shown by our reports on the lessons of Iraq and on the strategic defence review new chapter.
We have also undertaken inquiries into specific personnel issues, such as pensions and compensation arrangements for the armed forces, and we are now beginning a major inquiry into the duty-of-care issues in the three services. If I have time, I shall make further reference to that inquiry later.
On numbers, we heard encouraging news about progress towards manning targets from General Sir Michael Jackson, who told the Defence Committee a few weeks ago:
"The army is not yet at its target figure but it has, for example, increased by nearly 2,000 over the last 12 months. So I am satisfied that army planning is in a healthy position and my forecast is that it will continue to increase".
Recent operations have demonstrated the potency of modern weapons systems. Some 85 per cent. of munitions dropped in Iraq were precision guided compared with 25 per cent. in Kosovo and 11 per cent. in the Gulf war of 1991. The speed of the American advance on Baghdad was an example of how the concept of overmatching power has replaced that of overwhelming force, but technological advances, however effective, cannot make up for insufficient numbers on the ground, and no one can be in two places at once.
Stabilisation operations and peace support operations require a large number of personnel, not high-tech weaponry. The Defence White Paper focuses on how the armed forces can best deliver an expeditionary capability. The Defence Committee is conducting an inquiry into that and will publish its report in due course. I am a little concerned, however, that we risk overlooking the importance of ensuring that we meet the simple requirement of having the large numbers of troops needed to supply the considerable number who endure low-intensity operations.
The former Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Boyce, said in his maiden speech in the other place:
13 May 2004 : Column 538
"So we need to remember . . . the low intensity end, where we are for the vast majority of the time with our forces spread thinly around the world as they are today; that however clever the technology, it does not deliver the capability to be in two places at the same time, such as patrolling simultaneously in the Gulf and the south Atlantic. We have not yet cracked the fourth dimension. So, if there is to be a cut in frontline numbers, then no doubt we can also expect to see a cut in commitments. Anything else would be inexplicable to our already fully stretched servicemen and servicewomen."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 December 2003; Vol. 655, c. 343.]
We would all agree that we ask a lot of our armed forces and that they never fail to deliver, but we must recognise that what they can do is limited by how many of them there are. So how do we resolve the dilemma of too many commitments and too few people?
We should, of course, always look to reduce commitments where we can. I support the Government's continuing efforts to encourage our allies, particularly in Europe, to do more, but we must recognise that it is much easier to argue against taking on more commitments in the abstract than to argue against specific proposals when we see the need for them and know that we, and possibly we alone, have the armed forces that could meet that need.
So should we increase the size of our armed forces? To do so would, of course, require extra resources. Although the Chancellor's statement in the Budget was welcome, it is not realistic to expect the extra funding for defence that would be required to sustain a significant increase in armed forces personnel. Funding is not the only constraint, however. I was struck by what General Sir Michael Walker told us in the Defence Committee. He said:
"I do not think it is realistic to imagine that the demographic base in this country would necessarily support a significant increase in the number of people coming into our armed forces. It would be wrong of any of us, I think, to start lowering standards to increase numbers."
Even if we could afford it, it is the view of the Chief of the Defence Staff that it is unlikely that we could recruit significantly greater numbers to the armed forces without an unacceptable lowering of standards. My first conclusion is that we have to work with what we have got. We should of course continue to look for ways to improve our capabilities within those overall limitations, and we should be prepared to restructure our forces so that they are best able to respond to the sort of demands that we expect to make of them.
My next point is on key enablers, because if our forces are stretched overall, the specific demands that we make of them in some areas become unreasonable and unsustainable. As the Defence Medical Services has already been mentioned, I shall move on from that example in the hope that other Members have a chance to say a little more.
During Operation Telic there was much public criticism because crucial supplies were not getting through to our front-line forces. As the Committee's report, "Lessons of Iraq", spelt out, some of that criticism was justified, but not because the people with day-to-day responsibility for those matters were negligent or careless; rather it was the consequence of there being too few people in key specialties and too little investment in key systems.
13 May 2004 : Column 539
Logistics may not be glamorous, but it is essential. The Defence White Paper recognises that logistics must be seen as a capability in its own right and that it needs reorganisation, not least so as to alleviate the demands on specialist personnel.
Another example is engineering. The initial deployment to Operation Telic put huge demands on engineering capability. When I and other members of the Committee were in Shaibah last July, in temperatures that were routinely above 50° C, we saw uninstalled air-conditioning units lying around because no engineers were available.
I want briefly to mention our reserve forces. They were involved in both the combat and peacekeeping phases of Operation Telic and the Defence Committee was impressed with their dedication and their invaluable contribution.
Operation Telic involved the largest compulsory call-out of reserve forces since the 1956 Suez crisis. Reservists play a critical role in UK military operations, as they provide, in many cases, skills that are not readily available in the regular forces. The medical side provides a specific example; 760 medical reservists were deployed in Operation Telic.
Being mobilised can put substantial pressure on individual reservists, their families and employers. The Defence Committee is especially concerned that reservists do not lose their jobs as a result of mobilisation. The Chief of the General Staff, Sir Michael Jackson, told the Committee recently that it would be
"a mistake to assume that we could use the reserves at the tempo at which we have been using them over the last year".
"The Reserve Forces Act itself of course says once in every three years, and certainly that is the law, but I personally think that may be a bit too often anyway."
The Ministry of Defence must consider that point seriously.
We ask a lot of our armed forces. We put them into situations where they face great personal danger and come under extreme pressure. We also expect them to conduct themselves to high standards and on the overwhelming majority of occasions that is what they do. I have met and spoken to members of the British armed forces all over the world; they are often doing difficult jobs in unpleasant places. I have found them highly professional, committed to the task at hand and fully aware of their responsibilities towards the civilian population.
I do not intend to discuss the specific allegations against some personnel who have served in Iraq, especially as little time is available, but I welcome the comments of my right hon. Friend the Minister, and the Defence Committee will consider some of those matters in its inquiry into continuing operations. The Committee is also in the early stages of an inquiry into the duty of care towards recruits in all three services. Unfortunately, I do not have time to elaborate on that.
I end my speech by once again paying tribute to our armed forces, and to the personal sacrifice—indeed the ultimate sacrifice—they are called on to make in the service of their country. It is Parliament's and the country's responsibility to return their commitment with fair treatment, value and respect and just reward.
13 May 2004 : Column 540
4.34 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |