---

Armed Forces

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater on securing this important debate and join all others in congratulating the Minister on his promotion. I want to focus for a few moments on two important issues, upon which I am afraid I have spoken before: aircraft carriers and Army housing. We on these Benches were delighted at the announcement—I fear that it was long ago—that heralded the first step in the construction of two new aircraft carriers, the ““Queen Elizabeth”” and the ““Prince of Wales””. The plan is that, with the inevitable retirement of quite a number of our major naval assets, those two carriers will eventually fill important gaps in the Navy's ability to carry out its remit into the future. That plan has sadly been dogged by setback after setback, so the completion date of the first carrier—2012—is no longer a possibility, even if it remains a target. I said over three years ago that the carriers, "““are much-needed … ships which will be the nucleus of a … formidable fighting force””.—[Official Report, 17/1/05; col. 592.]" This is an increasingly urgent situation. The continual delay in the programme is opening up a huge risk in our maritime security. I shall demonstrate that by outlining our current aircraft-carrier capability as I understand it. Of our three carriers, HMS ““Invincible”” was decommissioned in 2005 and cannibalised for spares for the other two ships. HMS ““Ark Royal”” is operational as a platform for landing helicopters only. That means that it is not equipped with any strike aircraft. HMS ““Illustrious”” is operational but without a dedicated strike force either, it seems. I hope the Minister can clarify my understanding of the situation of HMS Illustrious. In response to a Written Question on 8 March in the other place, the Minister stated that there were six Harrier aircraft embarked on HMS Illustrious. Technically that is correct, but I understand that the air group was embarked for two weeks’ deck training only. The ship’s newsletter described this as, "““the first operations they have undertaken with fixed wing aircraft in many months””." That is hardly indicative of a combat-ready force. The Sea Harrier fleet has been stood down, so any fully operational carrier now uses an element of Harrier GR7 and GR9 aircraft. However, most of those are quite rightly currently in theatre in Afghanistan. As far as I can make out, there is no dedicated air group that can undertake strike operations on a carrier at short notice. Does the Minister agree that removing the Sea Harrier from front-line service demonstrates a certain lack of foresight on the Government’s part? What assurances can he give the House about the speed with which Harrier aircraft and their crews could be redeployed if an emergency arose requiring a naval task force? If Harriers had to be redeployed for this task, most likely from Afghanistan, would that not disastrously weaken the central support that Harriers are now giving to our ground troops? Is it not true that this puts our Royal Navy in a position where it is effectively out of the carrier business until the arrival of the newly commissioned supercarriers, or a decision is made to re-equip at least one operational ship with an air group of carriers? The current state of play has left our marine security open to great risk. The ““Invincible”” is due officially to go out of service in 2010, the ““Ark Royal”” in 2012 and the ““Illustrious”” in 2015. We are sure that the new aircraft carriers will not be ready by 2012, and we do not know by how much more the dates may slip. What assessment have the Government made of the possible cost of re-equipping and refitting ““Illustrious”” and ““Ark Royal”” should they need to have their service extended beyond the dates mentioned? I hope that the Minister will take time, if not to reply in this debate, to write to me on this matter. The maintenance of Army housing can have a significant impact on recruitment and retention, as mentioned several times in this debate. It is also an area about which the Armed Forces Pay Review Body has been seriously concerned for years, as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Dean. As many of us have said before, if the family is unhappy, the soldier will be unhappy and obviously concerned for his family’s welfare. An individual with worries will often become distracted and is likely to be affected in his or her operational efficiency on active service. A speaker at the annual conference of the Army Families’ Federation last year aptly summed it up: "““Most families feel passionately about their homes, army families perhaps more than most since they can sometimes be the only stable thing in their lives. Their husbands or partners might be on operations abroad but their home is their base, the one concrete thing in an otherwise turbulent existence””." Yet British Army families are still faced with housing problems and increased pressures. I welcome the recognition by the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, at Questions on 7 February that, "““much still needs to be done to meet the needs of our service men and women and their families””.—[Official Report, 7/2/07;col. 701.]" Credit where credit is due: a year since the somewhat inauspicious launch of the housing prime contract, there has been progress in delivery, though one could not say that it is perfect. We also welcome the additional funding pledged for this, though I note that the noble Baroness avoided questions on 7 February about a possible ring-fenced plan to upgrade older quarters. How much is to be spent on new accommodation and on upgrading old accommodation for service families? I understand that some 21,000 service families remain in accommodation below the accepted condition and 12,000 of those are Army family houses. The Army Families’ Federation argues that there has been extensive spinning of the figures but little recognition of the urgent need to improve the condition of many houses. They are houses that we might not choose to live in, but its members have no choice. The contrast between new housing and poor old housing should be a significant social consideration. Poor housing and poor barracks can be the cause of a significant drop in morale and much distress. An example in point may be the Welsh Guards and their imminent move to Wellington Barracks. One does not have to look far beyond the façade to see that the fabric of the buildings is crumbling and that the quality of living quarters is appalling. I declare an interest as a past master of the Drapers’ Company, with which the Welsh Guards have an affiliation. What consideration have Her Majesty’s Government given to a comprehensive repair programme that deals with the worst situation first rather than those who shout the loudest? What percentage of the funds allocated has been made available for replacing basic equipment such as boilers and cookers? Can the Minister rebut claims that, except for health and safety reasons, there has been no money for this purpose since November last year? How are Her Majesty’s Government monitoring this situation and ensuring that what funds there are will be spent appropriately and efficiently? Accompanied service, where it is feasible, is a vital element of the Army’s operational effectiveness, now and in the future. Even with more of the Army based at home in 10 to 15 years’ time, it is still expected that some 20 per cent of the Army will be living outside the UK. Moving people on posting will still go on, to meet the Army’s needs as well as the individual’s interest, so decent affordable married quarters and single rooms in barracks are a long-term need. It frustrates me that I seem to be referring to these two issues time and again. I hope that the Minister can offer me some positive news on progress on both fronts. However they are very important issues, each in their own way, for the security and morale of our country, and they must be addressed.