| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con):
Many months ago, Lord Leitch published his report, which the Government commissioned, on the nation’s skills. It made several important recommendations, in response to which the official Opposition, in the form of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham
(Mr. Redwood), published a paper on economic competitiveness and, in my name, published our policy on apprenticeships. However, there has been a deafening silence from the Government. The response to the Leitch report has been delayed; meanwhile, 1.3 million of our young people are not in education, employment or training. Will the Leader of the House assure the House that the response to the Leitch report will be speedy and comprehensive, and that it will be made here so that all hon. Members can contribute to the discussion about it?
Mr. Straw: My memory may be defective, but I recall my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Education and Skills and the Chancellor making many comments about the Leitch report. We are also planning legislation on it, and we take account of sensible proposals, from wherever they come.
Robert Key (Salisbury) (Con): Today is midsummer’s day—the summer solstice. Had the Leader of the House been in my constituency this morning, celebrating the dawn of a new era at Stonehenge, he would understand why I am asking him for an urgent debate on the future of Stonehenge. It would enable us to consider the outcome of the meeting this weekend of the UNESCO world heritage committee in New Zealand, where Stonehenge is on the agenda because of the Government’s neglect of world heritage sites in this country, including the Westminster and Tower of London world heritage sites. Can the debate be held not with Ministers from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, who are blameless and embarrassed, or Transport Ministers, who wish the road to be upgraded, but with Treasury Ministers, who have blocked progress on the project under two Governments for 21 years?
Mr. Straw: That was uncharacteristically ungenerous of the hon. Gentleman, although I understand his concern for Stonehenge, which is certainly a world heritage site, in his constituency. I gently remind him that the Government have put huge additional sums of money into the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Transport. The Conservative party, including him, voted against those additional sums.
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East) (Con): As the Leader of the House contemplates his well-deserved and highly skilled migration to either No. 11 Downing street or even Dorneywood, will he spare a thought for my constituent, Mr. Sreekumar Nair and his family, who came to this country under the highly skilled migrant programme, have made a massive contribution to the community in Dibden in my constituency, but find themselves caught by a rigid new points system, which means that fulfilment of the promises that they were given about getting British nationality will now be much delayed, if it happens at all?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his compliments. I take them in the spirit in which they were intended, which I think was a fine one. I obviously do not have the details of the constituency case that he raises. If he gives me more details that will assist, I will take up the matter with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
Mr. Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Transport about why the Department for Transport has cut £1.7 million from the roads maintenance budget for Northamptonshire? If, on the way back to his Blackburn constituency, the Leader of the House would care to drive through Northamptonshire, he will experience for himself the £60 million backlog in road maintenance expenditure in the past 12 years. The current administration is putting that right with an investment programme, but central Government have consequently seen fit to cut its grant allocation.
Mr. Straw: It is the duty of all of us to represent our constituents, but the hon. Gentleman needs to be a bit careful. Current investment in road schemes—I bet this is true of his constituency—far exceeds that in previous years. Other places are competing for much needed funds, not least my constituency, where famously 4,000 holes in Blackburn, Lancashire were identified 40 years ago. Not all of them have subsequently been filled in.
Points of Order
12.14 pm
Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will know, and Members will have observed, that among the written ministerial statements to be made today, the eighth, listed under the name of the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, is about the “Care Matters” White Paper. When Members tried to collect the paper earlier—indeed, at 11.50—this morning, it was not available, yet it was released to the press at 11.30. That clearly shows disrespect for the House and it does not allow Members to consider these matters as carefully as they should be able to. I know that in the past, Mr. Speaker, you have taken a very dim view of these matters. What action can I take—or, more appropriately, can you take—to address the problem?
Mr. Speaker: I will instruct my officials to look into the matter.
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East) (Con): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am inspired to raise a similar point of order. Before the statement on Tuesday, the shadow Defence team was promised it would have two hours to examine the media report arising out of the debacle of the capture of the sailors and the selling of their stories. In the end, we had only 45 minutes, so we really wonder what these assurances are worth.
Mr. Speaker: That is a matter to do with the Government, so I advise the hon. Gentleman to take it up with them. Perhaps the Leader of the House will remark on the matter.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Jack Straw): Further to the first point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take up the matter. My experience is that when this happens it is usually a mistake—albeit a mistake that should not have happened—but I will look further into it. Further to the second point of order, the rules or Cabinet Office guidelines suggest that just 30 minutes’ notice should be given of oral statements. Personally, I have always regarded that as inadequate for both sides of the House, as do my right hon. Friends. It is sometimes not possible to provide information other than at very short notice, but I will certainly take the matter up with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin (North Essex) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Back in 2002, I asked the Ministry of Defence whether it would agree regularly to place in the Library the monthly manning report, which is relevant to the debate that we are about to commence. I am grateful to the Minister of State for ensuring that this document finally arrived in the Library—just an hour or so ago. It is distressing, however, that before a debate of this nature, information is not made available to Members more timeously. I wonder whether you could use your good offices, Mr. Speaker, to persuade Ministers to make information more readily available.
Mr. Speaker: “More readily available” is a big notion, is it not? What exactly does it mean? Some people might say that it means a week’s notice while others might say it means three weeks’ notice. The fact of the matter is that the hon. Gentleman has the information before him and is able to participate in the debate. I recall that when I was a Back Bencher I was given information even less than an hour beforehand, but I was still able to make a contribution. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be able to do so as well.
Armed Forces Personnel
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Heppell.]
12.23 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): Since we last debated defence, 14 personnel have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. I know that the House’s thoughts are with their families and friends at this time.
I welcome this opportunity to open the debate on our armed forces personnel and the civilians who support them. Day in, day out, they work extremely hard for the nation at home and abroad. My central theme is that, in return for the things we ask of them and the outstanding work they do, our personnel must be properly looked after. Despite difficulties and challenges, which I am not going to deny, I believe that the Government are living up to their commitment to support them. I want briefly to cover a number of issues: operational welfare, military ethos, training and recruitment, welfare, manning, pay and accommodation, reservists, medical support, families, inquests and civilian personnel.
Last week, I was in the Falklands, where I was privileged to attend commemorations for the 25th anniversary of their liberation. I heard many tales of courage and sacrifice. Today, as then, our young men and women are making huge sacrifices against determined enemies in order to help people who cannot help themselves—this time, however, not in the wind and wet of the south Atlantic, but in the heat and dust of Iraq and Afghanistan. Our operational success in those theatres depends fundamentally on our people. It depends on their courage, their professionalism and their unstinting dedication to the task in hand.
I know that our forces are stretched and I know that tempo is one of the key concerns of our personnel and their families. Some are away for more time than they should be. I fully appreciate all of that. About 1 per cent. of the Royal Navy, 5 per cent. of Royal Air Force personnel and 13 per cent. of the Army are currently exceeding separation guidelines. That includes the Royal Marines, the infantry, the RAF Regiment, the support helicopter force, medics, logisticians and engineers.
The work that our personnel are undertaking in Iraq and Afghanistan is important. When I visit them, it is clear to me that they understand that. What I want to stress is that when we are able to reduce commitments, we will. In Northern Ireland, political progress has allowed us to reduce our force levels by around 8,000 when compared to levels in 2003. The reduction of our military operations in Bosnia and the wider Balkans has meant that we now have only a small number of personnel—just over 200—compared with more than 10,000 eight years ago.
Of course, matching personnel to commitments is difficult in an uncertain world, and the present tempo of operations makes it particularly challenging. At the moment, the advice from the chiefs of staff is that we can cope with current commitments, but we cannot assume that this will remain the case and we will clearly have to watch it closely.
Derek Conway (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con): In view of what the Minister has just said, will he tell us what proportion of those deployed on active service, particularly in Afghanistan and Iraq, are actually in the Territorial Army? To what extent is the Territorial Army being used in active theatres and what impact does that have on the advice that he is given by the generals?
Mr. Ingram: I intend to come to that. I mentioned that I was going to talk about the reservists, so if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will comment in more detail later.
Angela Watkinson (Upminster) (Con): How does the Minister square the freeze on promotion for lieutenants in the Royal Navy with the drive towards acquisition of more aircraft carriers and warships? What long-term impact will that have on recruitment and retention?
Mr. Ingram: I intend to come on to recruitment and retention as well. I am sure that the hon. Lady is only too well aware that the configuration of the future fleet in respect of modern warships requires substantially fewer people to serve on them. I cannot recall the figure offhand for the Astute vessels, but I suspect that it is in the region of 90 or so fewer per vessel. That clearly has an impact on the overall structure.
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East) (Con) rose—
Mr. Ingram: I am not giving way in the middle of answering a question—and I may not even give way to the hon. Gentleman at all.
As I was explaining, the impact will be felt among those who believe that their career paths may be temporarily stalled. All that has to be taken into account, but this is a point of readjustment as we look towards the future Navy. As I say, that will apply to the new types of warships that will come into play, including the new aircraft carriers, which we look forward to joining the fleet— [Interruption.] I will give way to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis).
Dr. Lewis: I knew he would, Mr. Speaker. Although the newer warships require fewer personnel when they go to sea, is it not planned that they should have double crews in some cases in order to take advantage of the fact that they can stay at sea longer? I think that the Minister’s point about fewer personnel is a little less clear-cut than he makes out.
Mr. Ingram:
I agree with that. There are wider issues concerning personnel profiling. As to the sea swap concept, I witnessed the trials currently being held when I was down in the Falklands. HMS Liverpool is there and it was being manned by the crew of HMS Exeter. Many identified with their mother ship. I am sorry, I meant HMS Edinburgh is in the Falklands, not HMS Liverpool. Many of the crew felt that they should have been on their mother ship. Issues have to be addressed, but I tried to explain to the personnel that this was a genuine attempt to ensure that we maintain our capabilities at sea for as long as we can. It seems to me much more sensible in principle—though
whether we can deliver in practice may be more difficult—to keep ships on station. Who knows what may happen at any particular time? It would be wrong for a ship to be sailing home only to be turned back, when it could have been on station. So there are issues that are being addressed, and all of them will have an impact. They are not easy to resolve, but none the less, we are seeking to address them.
I was commenting on the level of commitment in the armed forces, and I pay tribute to those who have served with distinction and those who continue to do so. At the same time, it is right that where there is evidence that behaviour has fallen below these high standards, we must follow up and take appropriate action. Last week’s House of Lords judgment in the Al-Skeini case provided helpful clarification on the application of the Human Rights Act 1998 in Iraq. Subsequent media coverage suggested that this ruling would impose an additional constraint on our personnel. That is not the case. The criminal law regulating the conduct of our forces remains the same: wherever they are serving in the world, they are always subject to English criminal law. That is not affected by this judgment.
One of the cases that forms part of the Al-Skeini judgment is that of Baha Mousa. We are reviewing the evidence presented in the associated courts martial of Corporal Payne and others, before deciding how best to proceed in relation to the events surrounding Mr. Mousa’s death. I am sure that the House will appreciate that I cannot comment further at this stage, as the legal process in the case has yet to conclude.
Let me now turn to issues of operational welfare. We must ensure that the people undertaking these dangerous operations have the support that they need while they are away. I am pleased to say that, over the past few months, we have made further improvements to the operational welfare package. For example, the telephone allowance in all operational theatres has been increased from 20 minutes to 30 minutes per week. The number of phones available will increase by 20 per cent. and the number of internet machines by 50 per cent. by the autumn. By the end of next month, internet access will be eight times faster. There will be areas in an operational theatre where this cannot be delivered, but our serving personnel understand the reasons for that.
We have just announced the latest increase in operational allowances for personnel serving in Iraq and Afghanistan —a further 3.6 per cent. uplift—taking the total to £2,320 over a typical six-month tour. Thirty-six thousand personnel have benefited from the operational allowance, and they deserve every penny.
In the last financial year, we spent £42 million on operational welfare. This is a significant improvement on the £12 million provided in 2001, when the operational welfare package was introduced. In addition, we are constantly working on ways to improve the force protection for our personnel on operations. Sadly, we cannot protect against all threats at all times. However, we have authorised spending of some £380 million on force protection urgent operational requirements in the last financial year alone. This is part of the £750 million spent on urgent operational requirements since 2003.
Let me turn to the important issue of military ethos. The expectations of our service personnel are high, and so they should be. Like young people everywhere, they aspire to do better and to go further and faster than the
generation before. They are less prepared than their predecessors to accept without question some aspects of service life, such as shared accommodation, poor equipment or inadequate remuneration. They want and expect a work-life balance between doing the job they love and spending time with the people they love. But they are every bit as professional, committed and effective as the generations who have gone before. This is a tribute to them, and a tribute to their training.
Ms Dari Taylor (Stockton, South) (Lab): On the point of support for people who have lives to lead as well as a duty to perform, how are the armed forces coping with the fact that they now have many more women serving in them, which is a sheer delight? Many of those women are officers, and many also have family roles and maternity roles. How is the Army coping with the fact that they need training and promotional opportunities equivalent to those for everyone else, which at the same time accommodate their woman’s role of having babies and bringing up families?
Mr. Ingram: I will be honest with my hon. Friend. If anything, we are perhaps behind the curve in terms of what is happening in the normal working environment throughout industry and elsewhere. That is probably because of the nature of military life, historically and otherwise. I will mention the success that we have had in recruiting females into the armed forces later in my speech, but we have to begin to look at this issue imaginatively; there should be no glass ceiling. There are too few senior military personnel who are female or from ethnic communities. We need to find sensitive ways of dealing with this. It is a matter of life choice for female entrants to the armed forces, in terms of what they want to do with their career and how they want it to progress. I meet many female serving members of the armed forces who are of an exceptionally high standard. They are a great exemplar, whether in the RAF, the Royal Navy or elsewhere. My hon. Friend has raised an important point, and we need to give proper and due attention to the matter in the time ahead.
Military training has to be robust, challenging and demanding. Ensuring the right balance between looking after new recruits and giving them the training that they need for operations on the battlefield is not easy. We have had to learn from the tragedies of Deepcut. One of the keys to success in this area is greater transparency and external evaluation. In March, we welcomed the publication of the Adult Learning Inspectorate report, “Better Training”, which set out its findings on the progress that we have made. This independent assessment said:
“In summary, great improvement has been made over a short space of time”.
“while further improvements are required in certain areas the change has been significant.”
We are now working with Ofsted to ensure that external audit of our progress continues.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |