| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The fact that the Government appear to have been reduced to buying and providing equipment for the front line only, because they cannot afford enough equipment for the front line and for training, is affecting morale and the effectiveness of our armed forces personnel. As every soldier knows, however, sweat saves blood, and sweat on the right equipment will also save blood. If we are sending our troops to Afghanistan without their having had sufficient training on the equipment that they will use in theatre, we are putting lives at risk. I cannot put it any more clearly, but that is what the Government are now doing. I fear that there is complacency about the professionalism of our armed forces. We always ask our people to take up the slack or make up the shortfalls through their ingenuity and professionalism, but there are limits. I hope that the Minister will give me
an undertaking that brigades preparing for deployment in Afghanistan or Iraq will be able to train on the equipment that they will use.
Finally, I want to address two points on morale. First, I want to discuss the aftermath of the HMS Cornwall incident. I am privileged to be a member of the Defence Committee, which was briefed on General Fulton’s report earlier this week. I encourage the House to understand that the report is hard-hitting and comprehensive, although it leaves some questions unanswered. That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), the Defence Committee Chairman, has made it clear that the Committee will examine the report further, and I hope that we can make some concrete recommendations to the Government as a result.
I wonder whether the Minister will confirm one thing that did not come out in Monday’s statement. The Secretary of State told the House that
“The central lesson is that we must improve our ability to identify and assess the risks that this complex environment generates, and to train and posture our forces accordingly.”—[ Official Report, 19 June 2007; Vol. 461, c. 1256.]
That underlines the comprehensive nature of the failure that resulted in the capture of those sailors and Royal Marines.
I understand the reluctance to find a single scapegoat for that failure; indeed, we should not scapegoat any particular service in this episode. Will the Minister confirm that HMS Cornwall was ultimately under the command of the commander of joint operations at PJHQ? It was part of a tri-service operation, the complexity of which—particularly multinational tri-service operations—perhaps led to the lack of flow of information, to which the Secretary of State referred in his statement, which contributed to an obvious mis-assessment of the threat at the time of the capture. If that is the case, will the Minister set out whether the report has considered the chain of command right to the top, which is absolutely vital for the credibility of the report?
Finally, on morale, what contributes to poor morale are judgments made by the courts that add considerably to the complexity of military operations because of the number of lawyers who have to be deployed alongside the soldiers, sailors and airmen. Having studied the judgment in the case of Baha Mousa, which the House of Lords decided last week, I am reassured that the international applicability of the Human Rights Act to British public bodies working overseas is very limited and does not extend to military operations. It extends only to detainees—who can blame the family for bringing the case?—contained in a British-controlled environment, even in another sovereign state.
There was a dissenting opinion among the six Law Lords. Lord Bingham made it clear that he did not think that the Act extended to international jurisdiction. Article 1 of the convention, which extends the jurisdiction, was not carried into UK law. The other Law Lords understood that that was Parliament’s intention, even though Parliament expressly left out article 1 from the Human Rights Act.
I am probably not explaining this particularly well, but the point is that the soldiers, sailors and airmen
whom we deploy on operations now have to operate in what can only be described as a very fluid legal environment.
Mr. Jenkin: The Minister shakes his head. Why did the Government contest the case? Why did the Government’s QC go into the court and contest the international applicability of the Human Rights Act? That was what was set down in the Act of Parliament. The Act does not apply British law internationally; that is read, by implication, directly from the convention. This puts our armed servicemen and women in an increasingly invidious position.
I sat on the Delegated Legislation Committee that last week dealt with the orders arising from the Armed Forces Discipline Acts. Our armed servicemen have to operate in a much more complicated legal environment. There has to be a limit, because I gather from the Joint Services Command and Staff College at Shrivenham that we now have an 11th principle of warfare, which servicemen have to learn—legitimacy. Effectively, we are asking our armed servicemen to question the orders they are given, in case they are being given an illegal order. The two soldiers who refused to be deployed to Iraq in 2003 were never court-martialled, because the Government did not want to test the legality of their refusal to deploy. I believe this is undermining the chain of command on which our armed servicemen depend.
Far preferable would be a system of armed forces discipline that rested on comprehensive Acts of Parliament that were not internationally justiciable, either under the convention on human rights or by the International Criminal Court. If we in the House can satisfy ourselves that our armed servicemen are acting legitimately and according to law, what business is it of a judge from another nationality who knows nothing about the national interests at stake in a military operation? I think that is why the United States refuses to sign up to the International Criminal Court. It is why the French Government opted their military out of the convention on human rights. I think that is the position that we should have for our own armed servicemen, so that when they face a military tribunal and are exonerated, they do not face the double jeopardy that was suffered by Trooper Williams, who was exonerated by his commanding officer but subsequently prosecuted by another court, only to be exonerated again, or by the Parachute Regiment men who came back from Iraq and were acquitted in a court of law after they had already been acquitted by their commanding officers. I think we owe our armed servicemen a clear framework of discipline and procedure, which these international arrangements do not give them.
3.41 pm
Mr. Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD): I am very pleased to be able to take part in this debate and pay my tribute to our servicemen and women, who carry out very difficult tasks on our behalf and often suffer severe injuries. Like the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway), when I meet service personnel I am always impressed by their quality and their commitment. They are rightly held in very high regard by this nation.
I represent the town of Brecon, which houses 160 Brigade Wales, headquarters of the Army in Wales, and
I must say that the relationships between the local communities and the military have never been better. I should like to compliment successive brigadiers who have commanded 160 Brigade Wales, and their officers, for the work they have done to achieve that. The Army makes very heavy use of the countryside in mid-Wales, but the population understand that the Army needs to have well-trained troops ready to pursue the national needs and interests. The Minister must have heard this before, but the more Welsh land the Army eats, the better disposed are the farmers and landowners in mid-Wales to the use that the Army makes of the facilities.
Derring Lines, which is based in Brecon, is where senior NCOs and junior officers are trained in their leadership duties as company and platoon commanders. We welcome the fact that Sandhurst officer cadets now spend the last six weeks of their training in Derring Lines, being tested on the Sennybridge ranges—and they certainly are tested on the Sennybridge ranges. I remember talking to a Gurkha in Brunei, and when he heard that I had come from Sennybridge he said, “The Arctic was cold but it was dry, the jungle was wet but it was warm, but Sennybridge was cold and wet and you needed a high degree of personal organisation to survive there.” We have a Gurkha company based in Brecon, the Mandalay company, which acts as a demonstration company for training purposes. It is very well respected in the military and civilian communities based in Brecon, and its members have had improved terms and conditions, including extending accompanied service, so that their wives and families are with them longer. Their wives are well respected in their workplaces in Brecon and their children are made welcome in the schools.
With almost every infantry soldier being either stationed or trained in Brecon at some time, I meet a lot of the infantry, and they complain about the quality of the kit issued to them. A number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey), have drawn attention to concerns about high- technology issues—for example, those relating to helicopters—but often soldiers complain about basics such as assault vests and other types of kit. Whenever I see them, it seems that they are trying to buy kit to replace what has been issued or to modify or enhance the kit that they have. They do that with their own money, which saps their confidence and enthusiasm for their job.
I talked this through with a number of soldiers the other day. I will not go into every example they gave me, but I thought it might be interesting to set out a few of their concerns, because it is unacceptable that they have to spend their own money modifying kit that should be issued in a usable form.
The pouches on the right shoulder of assault vests are properly positioned for firing from a standing position, but from a prone position it is impossible to get the butt of the weapon into the shoulder because the pouch is too high. The solution is to move the pouch down, making the vest fit for purpose, but it is bizarre that soldiers have to pay for that, rather than be issued with the kit in that form.
Soldiers also complain that the ammunition pouches are too small to carry the A2 magazines for the SA80, but are perfect for the magazines for the SA81. The
solution is to place the pouches further down the vest with a larger flap, once again at a cost to individual soldiers.
Soldiers are even complaining about their trousers, which are sourced from China and have to be reinforced around the knees and crotches because on deployment they wear out. What could be worse than having kit that is not fit for purpose on deployment?
A lightly built soldier was issued with Osprey body armour for a 104 cm chest size. It was too big for him and the Velcro fastening was only partly engaged, so when he ran it came undone. One can understand how dangerous that was. The solution was to modify it to make it fit.
I was told that the molly strips put on body armour to hold pouches and carry other equipment are too thin—19 mm rather than the 25 mm that other armies use—so equipment falls off. I was also told that soldiers would wear neck armour when they were in vehicles, but not outside them, because the pop studs that hold that neck armour on are shiny and can be easily seen. A toned-down colour would have solved that problem.
Mr. Joyce: I have been listening carefully and my imagination was caught by the hon. Gentleman’s reference to reinforced crotches. His points might be perfectly valid, but is he aware that the armed forces already have procedures in train whereby quartermasters and commanding officers ask such questions and the information is fed back into the design process?
Mr. Williams: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point, because I was about to refer to it. I asked the soldiers whether they were feeding back their points so that standard bits of equipment could be better designed. Their response was that they do feed back, but changes are rarely made. Will the Minister say whether there are any other systems or facilities to ensure that kit is better designed in future, so that individual soldiers, especially junior ones, who are not well paid, do not have to spend their own money on replacing, modifying or enhancing it?
It is great to come into contact with serving soldiers in my constituency, which has a strong tradition in regiments such as the 24th Foot and the South Wales Borderers. Recently, we have gone through tough times, with the amalgamation of the Royal Welch Fusiliers and the Royal Regiment of Wales to form the Royal Welsh. It is too tough that young soldiers either to have to buy replacements for their equipment or enhance it and make it fit for purpose. What processes are in place to ensure that design can be enhanced?
Mr. Ingram: Our armed forces have never been so well equipped in terms of personal equipment. Anyone who visits any theatre of operation remarks on that. The hon. Gentleman has given a litany of issues that, he said, need to be addressed. The likelihood is that they are all being addressed. The problem is that there is usually a lead time between examination of what is wrong and delivery of a correction. We must get it right; the worst thing is to get something that does not function. Note will be taken of the issues he has mentioned. If a corrective measure is not in place, there might be a good reason for it; if not, we will attend to it.
Mr. Williams: I thank the Minister for that response. Many hon. Members have spoken of their admiration for his approach to the job, and I accept his commitment. From the point of view of morale, and being able to use the more complicated equipment, it will help if the basic equipment is fit for purpose.
3.53 pm
Willie Rennie (Dunfermline and West Fife) (LD): I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate. I express my condolences to the families and friends of those who have lost their lives in the service of our country, and to those who have been injured. I shall return to that later, when I focus on the issue of mental health services and health services for the armed forces in general.
It is a pity that the Minister of State has just left the Chamber, because I was about to compliment him on his dedication to the job. Although we often disagree, I do have respect for him, despite the fact that he can start a fight in an empty room. I agree with him that it is unfortunate that the Scottish National party Members are absent again today. Their leader, the right hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who claims to want Scotland to be an independent nation, is not sufficiently interested in the armed forces to be present in the Chamber today.
While we are on the issue of Scotland, I was disappointed that the Educational Institute of Scotland teachers conference criticised the Ministry of Defence’s efforts to recruit from our schools and to educate young people about the value of the armed forces. We should encourage as many people as possible to join the armed forces, because it is an honourable and significant profession.
I wish to focus primarily on overstretch, which has been mentioned several times this afternoon. I am pleased that the Minister has admitted that there are problems to do with what he would describe as “stretch”, some would describe as “very stretched”, and others would describe as “overstretch.” It might be pedantic to make such distinctions, but at least the Minister has accepted that there is an issue. To me, this is about what we do about the problem now that we have recognised that there is one. How far does it have to go before we say, “Enough is enough” and take some remedial action to solve it? The chiefs of staff say that they can cope with current commitments with the current numbers, but how long will it be before we cannot cope, and how will we know when that has happened?
The National Audit Office says that our armed forces are about 5,000, or 2.8 per cent., below strength. That has been the case for the past five years as they have been operating above protected deployment levels. During that period, some 14.5 per cent. of soldiers have been sent on missions more frequently than recommended by harmony guidelines. Medical services have been hit worst, with reservists filling 66 per cent. of vacant accident and emergency department and intensive therapy nursing posts. The Defence Committee has said that personnel shortages are creating a “clear danger” and that the military will be unable to maintain its commitments in the near future. With major deployments in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Balkans, and forces working in a total of 28 different countries, the Committee found that services were operating
“in insufficient numbers and without the equipment they need”.
We have heard much about General Sir Richard Dannatt, but it is worth considering that in saying that relations between the armed forces and the Government could be undermined if current levels of commitment were maintained, he said that he was
“reflecting a view widely held in the armed services”.
Apparently he has spoken out again recently, calling for an extra 3,000 front-line soldiers. General Dannatt fears that the Army risks being so worn down by the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan that it cannot operate properly. He called for extra troops during an impromptu speech at the end of a conference in Whitehall a couple of weeks ago.
Adrian Weale from the British Armed Forces Federation has pointed out that defence funding was based on assumptions made in the late 1990s. He said:
“We were never expected to be having to mount these two”—
by which he means Iraq and Afghanistan—
“what are called medium-scale enduring operations at the same time. And that’s put a lot of pressure on the armed forces.”
Our very own Defence Secretary admitted recently that the scale of operations meant that
“we could be in danger of degrading our armed forces”.
There is no “could” about it. There is no doubt that we are degrading our armed forces, and that is having an effect on their sustainability and on the morale of our troops. All the indicators that I mentioned earlier are clear evidence that our armed forces are being degraded.
It will come as no surprise to Members that Liberal Democrats believe that the Iraq war has contributed significantly to the retention problems in the armed forces. I again pay tribute to those who have lost their lives in Iraq in the service of their country. By invading Iraq, we created a moral obligation to support the country, and our armed forces have an important role in achieving that, but we must recognise that the commitment cannot be open-ended and that the current strategy is not succeeding. That is why earlier this year the Liberal Democrats said that it is time for us to go. We reached the conclusion that our troops should get out, and soon. Unfortunately, the Government have not listened to that advice, but we hope that they will listen sooner or later.
What are the consequences of this overstretch? According to an MOD survey, a rising number of soldiers are no longer given full recommended rest periods between operations. Only 30 per cent. of ordinary soldiers who responded to the survey were satisfied with the notice given for extra duties. Almost three out of five rated their work load as high or very high, and only 31 per cent. felt valued, with nearly one in four saying that their morale was low.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |