---

Defence in the United Kingdom

The Secretary of State says from a sedentary position that it has been an excellent day; he has not been here for very long. What concerns me more than anything else—it also concerns the armed forces—is the attitude of the Labour Government to their loyal soldiers, sailors and airmen. We should not be too surprised at that attitude. We heard from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes about the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s attitude to spending money on the armed forces. I want to give the House two examples that illustrate, I regret to say, the contempt in which some members of the Government and the Labour party hold the armed forces. I do not wish to be nice to the Secretary of State, but I exempt him from these criticisms as I know that they do not apply to him. I believe that they do not apply to his Ministers either, although I have not yet heard their views in the same detail as I have heard his. I believe that the Secretary of State is a great friend of the armed forces and it is a pity that he has to implement the cuts that were announced before he took his post. While serving as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland during Christmas 1999, Peter Mandelson—as I understand it, a pretty close confidant of the Prime Minister—referred to members of the Household Division as ““chinless wonders””. At the time, three of the five footguards battalions were on operations in Northern Ireland. I was in a footguards battalion and served in Northern Ireland. If I thought that ““Uncle Peter””, as he is apparently called in the Prime Minister’s household, were no longer welcome in No. 10, I would be happier, but I suspect that he remains a close friend and confidant. More recently in 2003, the Deputy Prime Minister insulted our armed forces by saying, ““All soldiers are boneheads.”” That rather contrasts with what the Minister of State said about how much he respected our forces. It was an unworthy comment, but I suggest that it is revealing of how many in the Labour party’s hierarchy view the armed forces. My right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Secretary of State mentioned several of the real problems that are dogging the armed forces, including declining recruitment and retention, notwithstanding the fact that, as I understand it, 7 per cent. of the Army is now recruited outside the UK from the Commonwealth. My right hon. and learned Friend and several other hon. Friends referred to the increasing haemorrhage of soldiers from the Territorial Army. Until the present Government came to office, such soldiers had never been used on operations outside general war to the extent that they have been in Iraq. I would like to highlight other issues that are making the Army, and the armed forces in general, deeply suspicious of the Government. As I said on Monday, I fear that they are undermining the loyalty and trust that should exist both ways between our armed forces personnel and their political commanders. When he sums up, will the Minister comment on the following extract from an article in Monday’s The Daily Telegraph? I know that he probably does not read that newspaper, but if it were a quote from The Guardian—[Interruption.] I am delighted to hear that the Secretary of State reads The Daily Telegraph. The article states:"““A week after the trial ended, Brig. Robert Aitken, the director of Army personnel strategy and answerable directly to Gen. Jackson, wrote to selected commanders.""‘How did our officers perform?’, he asked. ‘Was abuse of Iraqi civilians widespread?’""The brigadier said he was not ‘conducting a witch-hunt’ but added: ‘I do need some evidence.’""In a reference to press reports, he wrote: ‘The media at the moment is giving our military discipline system a bit of a hammering and is also asking . . . whether our officers behaved to the highest standards.’””" I do not know him and—I hasten to add for the Secretary of State’s benefit—I am not criticising him one way or the other, but we require an answer about whether that is true. Was there a policy of investigating officers to get them to face a court martial? I have already raised earlier today the question of the Attorney-General’s political involvement in decisions. Perhaps the Minister will tell me that the Government did not encourage that particular policy. As we have already heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth, these courts martial are harming the morale of people who, whether they be soldiers or their commanders, are operating in incredibly difficult circumstances. I can assure the House that all soldiers understand that if they wilfully abuse Iraqis or others, or if they wilfully misbehave or commit criminal acts, they should expect to be punished. I hope, however, that everyone understands that sitting in a nice office in Whitehall or, indeed, in the Chamber of the House of Commons and talking about these matters is very different from being on the streets of Iraq, where temperatures may be as high as 58o C and troops may be wearing heavy body armour, sweating like the proverbial, knowing that some people around them have weapons and are trying to kill them. My second point leads on directly from that and relates to the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill, which my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth mentioned. Will the Minister tell me what representations he has received from senior officers about that shameful Bill? Can he confirm that it is the case that British soldiers who served in Northern Ireland, who were obeying orders from senior officers directed by the Government at the time, may be prosecuted under the Bill on exactly the same conditions as the terrorists that they were trying to deter? Would the soldiers and SAS personnel involved in the Loughgall incident in 1987 be caught by this Bill? The Minister will recall that the European Court of Justice—it might have been the European Court of Human Rights; he will put me right—found that the terrorists involved in that incident were unlawfully killed, and that as a result, compensation was paid to their relations. I would be very grateful if the Minister commented on those issues. I can assure him that soldiers will not wish to engage the enemy—the primary purpose of infantrymen and most other soldiers—if they are likely to face prosecution. It cannot be right to treat public servants acting under orders in the same way as terrorists committing crimes in this country. These are the issues that are harming the armed forces long-term morale. As I said, I do not believe that the Secretary of State is party to them, so let him stand up and say what he thinks about them. It is important that he do so. Many other issues have been raised and I shall not cover them in detail, but the cut in the number of infantry battalions as part of the Army restructuring is, to put it mildly, perverse, coming as it does when the Army is so busy around the world. It cannot make sense to reduce the number of infantry battalions by four. Perhaps the Minister will tell us where the troops for Afghanistan will come from, because it is not immediately apparent. In view of the question from the hon. Member for Colchester, he might also tell us when the disbandments and reorganisation will take place. I understand that they have been put off because our troops are so busy. On infantry reorganisation, is the Minister absolutely sure that ending the arms plot will make the infantry operate better and be more usable? Has the Minister considered the following important point, which several soldiers have raised with me? Currently, our battalions have experience in depth. They contain people who have served in armoured infantry in Germany and Iraq, and who have done basic foot-soldiering and peacekeeping in Northern Ireland. Such people have the gamut of experience, but given the direction in which this reorganisation is going, we risk taking away that depth of experience and the military expertise that we currently enjoy. My concern is that we will get a less flexible, less usable infantry under this reorganisation. I come briefly to the Royal Navy. In discussing how the Government have been treating our armed forces, it needs to be pointed out that we are reducing the frigate and destroyer fleet from 32 to 25. In fact, in a couple of years’ time there will be even fewer. Some ships have yet to come into fleet service. This is a dire situation. The Chief of the Naval Staff and First Sea Lord, Sir Alan West, said that he believes that 30 is the minimum number that we can make do with. In many ways, today is a rather sad day. This debate has been largely interesting and well-attended—certainly by Conservative Members, if not Labour Members—but it has raised more questions than it has answered. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to answer some of them when he replies.