---

Armed Forces Personnel

I welcome this afternoon’s debate and the opportunity to pay tribute to the men and women of the armed forces for their courage, commitment and continuing efforts in operations around the world. I echo the words of condolence that the Minister expressed at the beginning of the debate in respect of those who have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. I also want to express my concern about those who have returned after being physically injured or, indeed, psychologically wounded in those conflicts. As other hon. Members have said, this is the 25th anniversary of the conflict in the Falklands. I pay tribute to the many service personnel who served in that conflict, to those who lost their lives and to the families who were here: then, as now, our armed forces rose to the challenges facing them and worked tirelessly and bravely in a hostile and challenging environment. Twenty-five years later, we are deployed in two conflicts, one in Iraq and one in Afghanistan, with more troops stationed around the world who are involved in both peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance. While we are demanding so much from our troops, we must be sure to repay their work in kind, and we must not neglect the essential duty of care that is promised to them. Can we truly say we are fulfilling that promise in all circumstances? As we hear about critical overstretches, equipment shortages and shortfalls in welfare and health provisions, we need to take a hard look at what we can do better for the men and women of our armed forces and their families. We need a holistic approach, because piecemeal, bitty measures will not patch up the visible gaps and problems that we know need to be addressed. Our current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have taken an unquantifiable toll on our armed forces. Ministers are always loth to use the term ““overstretch””, but they have acknowledged that the harmony guidelines are being breached and that there are manning problems—equally, there are sometimes equipment problems. That is overstretch, and I cannot see any point in denying that the armed forces are overstretched, because it is apparent to anyone who examines the situation that that is the case. Our work in Afghanistan is vital, and it will continue for a very long time—I hesitate to speculate how long it will take, but it is perfectly clear that we are in Afghanistan for the long haul. On Sunday, General Sir Richard Dannatt called for an increase of 3,000 front-line soldiers to help the Army operate more effectively. That is a much-needed measure, and the Defence Secretary appeared to acknowledge that it is necessary to avoid the degradation of our armed forces. Unless we do something to address the manning and capability gap, our armed forces risk being physically and psychologically worn down, which will impact on their well-being and their ability successfully to carry out missions. Overstretch becomes more acute when troops feel little recompense for the added demands on them, which is why a comprehensive welfare, care and family package is needed. For the past two years, notwithstanding what the Minister has said about recruitment, outflow from our armed forces has exceeded intake from civilian life in all three services. That has happened at a time when conflicts have become more critical and our armed forces are obviously overstretched. Between April 1990 and April 2007, the size of our regular forces has decreased by more than one third, but operational demands have increased. Although our operations were relatively small in the 1990s, we are now involved in two large conflicts. It is concerning that infantry battalions have been reduced, particularly when present operations are largely land-based. This has again served to exacerbate the overstretch on the infantry. The fact that more than 11,000 cases have been reported of soldiers going absent without leave since the start of the Iraq war, with 1,000 still unaccounted for, is testament to the difficulties experienced by our troops.