---

Armed Forces Personnel

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newmark) on an interesting and powerful speech. He covered some important issues. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) who covered myriad subjects, which broadened the debate and reflected the wide range of topics that we have talked about today. My first point was to have been my congratulations to the Secretary of State on staying in the Chamber throughout the entire debate. Unfortunately, he has just sneaked off, but I am pleased that he could participate in much of the debate. I realise that he has many other commitments. In his opening remarks, the Secretary of State said how proud we all are of what our armed forces do. He talked of their high reputation across the world. He then warned us to be careful when trying to analyse or quantify what our military are actually doing. I take heed of those words, but it is our duty in the House to make sure that we understand what is happening. The Army, Navy and Air Force do not have union representation to give voice to their concerns. There is no one they can run to, so it must be an objective of the House—certainly for those of us who have worn a uniform—to make sure that if our Government task our military anywhere in the world, there is correct scrutiny in this Chamber. Our loyalty to our armed forces should not be questioned if we raise awkward questions about them. I turn to our commitments and our defence personnel. Sadly, there have been cuts of up to 40,000 in our armed forces since 1997. Since the Labour Government came to office, the Army is down by 9,000, the Navy is down by 10,000 and the RAF is down by 16,000. Sadly, it would now be possible to fit every member of the British Army into Wembley stadium—if it were ever finished. That is a sad indictment of the size of our forces. This year, spending will be 2.2 per cent. of gross domestic product—the smallest proportion of national wealth since 1930. We have more commitments and fewer people to do the job, which equals overstretch. As anybody in the military can tell us, experiencing overstretch and cost cuts at the same time leads to the demise of morale. Many of our current operations around the world are with NATO, whether in IFOR, the implementation force or ISAF, the international security assistance force or others. NATO is the cornerstone of Europe’s protection and defence and has served us well for the past 50 years. The target is that all participating nations spend 3 per cent. of their GDP, but we are not doing so—nor are other countries. That illustrates the problems that we and other countries face at a time when we expect so much from our armed forces. We are gaining experience, however. NATO forces went into Bosnia and Kosovo and they are now in Afghanistan. However, much co-ordination work remains to be done—whether in respect of equipment or troop operations. NATO is searching for a new role. During the cold war, its mission and its objectives were clear; today, things are not so clear. NATO was designed to defend Europe but it is now going to areas such as Afghanistan, into which one would not expect it to wander. Work could be done in Brussels to consider how ISAF and NATO-operated forces could be used not so much for peacekeeping but for the next step—reconstruction. NATO is an organised and effective body with a chain of command, but there is a limit to its involvement and Ministers in Brussels should consider such things. I served in Bosnia and, when peace could be maintained, our troops did not simply carry out guard duties; we helped to rebuild schools. It was not part of our mission, but we decided that it was the right thing to do to help win over hearts and minds. Unfortunately, that is not happening in Afghanistan because it is not part of the remit—it would be almost a step too far. My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) referred in his opening comments to the impressive number of countries involved in Afghanistan: 37 is the latest total—more than there are in NATO. However, the caveats for those forces—the limitations placed on them by their Governments—affect overall command and mean that their effectiveness is limited. There are varying rules of engagement that stop soldiers from particular nations from going out on patrol, engaging with the enemy or even getting into a vehicle. That makes it difficult for the ISAF commander to mobilise his troops in a unified fashion. On paper, 37 countries looks effective, but in fact there are only four soldiers from Austria, 10 from Luxembourg, four from Switzerland and 106 from Denmark. The numbers are small when we consider what those countries could be contributing and when compared with what Britain, the United States and other countries are doing. Again, I urge the Minister, when he goes to Brussels, to ask if they cannot contribute more troops, what they are actually contributing. The participation of 37 nations looks very impressive, but the reality is far different.