---

Armed Forces Personnel

It is a genuine pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North (Jim Sheridan), who made a sincere and brave speech. I am sure that his Front-Bench colleagues will be grateful for his support. He will understand if some of us are not quite as enthusiastic about the record of this Government, but at least he made a brave attempt to defend them. Such debates typically have a formula. The Minister makes a fairly optimistic speech, or is as optimistic as he can be, and the Opposition present their list of moans. However, although criticisms have been directed at the Government, none of them is personally directed at the Minister of State, who has had to leave his place, or his colleague the Under-Secretary, who now defends the Dispatch Box. Our criticisms are of the Government overall; we realise that lurking in other Departments are people with clunking fists who have as much influence over MOD policy as any Minister who has the privilege to serve in that Department. It would be unfortunate if the Minister, who got a little prickly in dealing with some of our interventions, thought that they were attacks on him personally, because he is highly regarded as having done a good job. Although he may be re-roled in the next seven days—we will have to wait and see—he can look back on his tenure in office with some pride. Today’s debate has been slightly different. We often sit in the Chamber endlessly during long opening Front Bench speeches, but the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who is not currently in his place, was a powerful analysis of what is going on in our armed forces. It was one of the most powerful opening speeches that I have heard in this House; his critique of the Government was very telling. He fulfilled his brief extraordinarily well, given that it is about holding the Government to account—not necessarily forever explaining what he would do should he become Secretary of State for Defence, but making that Department’s Ministers account for their stewardship, while they have it, of our armed forces. In the borough of Bexley, we are very proud to have the headquarters of the 71st Yeomanry Signal Regiment, which is a Territorial Army unit. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Evennett)—who shares with the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (John Austin) the representation of the borough of Bexley—and I recently visited that unit to see what training and morale was like. It is always impressive for Members of this House when they have an opportunity to visit regular or Territorial regiments and see the level of commitment and dedication that the men and women who serve there bring to their task. Although that unit is a Territorial unit, their training standards are exceptionally high and their level of commitment is second to none. We in Bexley are proud of our local regiment and think that it does a very good job. Like many Territorial Army units, many of its members also see active service. Many members of the armed forces, regular and Territorial, wonder whether society as a whole values what they are doing. As our society moves away from large-scale wars, which are increasingly a matter of history, and from institutions like national service, it becomes difficult for the civilian population, and indeed parliamentarians, to understand what servicemen do, how they live their lives, how they train, and, from time to time, their perverse sense of humour. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North mentioned Tory defence cuts. Now that I am becoming such a greybeard in this place, I can say that I was fairly involved when Tom King, as was, announced in this Chamber the defence cuts that were supposed to be part of the dividend from the fall of the Soviet empire. As politicians, we have to understand that all Prime Ministers, whether Tory, Liberal Democrat or Labour, are the same—they get very grand. It is all very well for them to float around on the international stage making agreements and committing the country to do this, that and the other, but it is the troops on the ground who bear the brunt. So although Britain remains a member of the Security Council, has the fifth largest economy in the world and perceives itself as having a major part to play in many international conflicts, it behoves hon. Members, especially senior Members and those in the Government, to have a little humility when they sign up to great exercises and bear in mind the serious consequences of their actions. Although my party when in government undoubtedly had an impact on restructuring the armed forces—we cannot deny that—one has to put restructuring in the context of the demands that are being made on our armed forces. There is much talk about overstretch, but there is also a genuine feeling that we are asking far too much of far too few people. Politicians must either curb their pomposity in wanting to get involved in conflicts around the globe or be duty bound to ensure that the people whom they commit to certain injury and possible death have as much support as possible. Although recruitment could always be better, it is—perhaps perversely—fairly strong. Several hon. Members who take a particular interest in reserve forces visited a unit called 4 Para, which has a strong recruitment policy. It trains in many areas—it is all macho stuff, but it comprises an impressive bunch of Territorial Army soldiers. It is interesting to note that 88 per cent.—a high proportion—of that battalion have been on active service in Afghanistan, Bosnia or Iraq. About 300 years ago, at a time when I could fit into a uniform, I was in the Territorial Army and a major with a NATO infantry battalion. At least then, when we were training for the Russian hordes to come charging across the German plains, most of us knew that it was unlikely to happen, so any injuries were normally sustained on training exercises. As a TA major, it made me slightly nervous to see the coffins that we had to take on the exercises. We thought that we had signed up for weekends, not to come back in a box. The training that one receives and the commitment that one gives when one is not expected to stand opposite someone who is actively trying to kill are different. That is not the challenge that faces our TA soldiers today, however. They are deployed into challenging theatres of action. Some of our colleagues have, to their credit, experienced recent active service. I therefore hope that the Under-Secretary takes on board the reason for our dismay about his colleagues’ announcements on cuts in TA funding. There is undoubtedly a link between training for the TA in the uniformed, civilian capacity and that for those who will be required to go on active service. There is no point in having a TA unit such as 4 Para, with 88 per cent. of its servicemen deployed in active theatre, training on kit that will not have to be used on active service, where more modern equipment will probably be available. The Under-Secretary must therefore ensure that TA soldiers train with the equipment that they will have to use when they are in a life-threatening situation That is why the training budget is important. Most TA recruits go through a version of a regular training course, which has modernised to take account of young people today. They are sometimes not quite as fit as their grandfathers would have been at a similar age; they have different expectations, and they are not brought up in a culture of deference, yet they are shoehorned into a regimental system that can a bit of a shock. Most, if not all, adjust to it quickly. Most people are impressed by the training that is available. Most people will think, ““Do we care? Does it really matter?”” about today’s announcement of the cuts in competitions. However, the competition cups are an important focus for both TA and regular Army units, especially the infantry. Being up against regular Army teams is an important part of reserve Army and TA training. One of the greater pleasures of being a Territorial soldier was when the TA teams beat the regular teams, because there is inevitably some rivalry. It is therefore a pity that competitions can be written off as if that had no genuine impact on training. The Minister responsible for the armed forces will find that that is not the case. Although the Ministry will have offered the cut because the Treasury is making it find savings, I doubt whether many infantry personnel involved in the process believe that it is a good idea. Is the skill base of our armed forces today any use; is it better or worse than that of previous generations? Many old sailors—and no doubt old soldiers—would have watched what happened to the Iranian hostages, perhaps with a little despair. Personally, I do not think that the young people involved had very much choice in how they behaved, but eyebrows were probably raised when one of them went off from an active unit with an iPod plugged in. I am sure that not many soldiers would patrol the streets of Iraq and Afghanistan with their iPods plugged in. That is the sort of generational change that people have to come to terms with. Are the current generation as good as previous generations? I certainly find when I visit units that they are a very good crowd indeed. I believe that the young men and women who have decided to join the armed forces are a very impressive bunch. One could hardly say that they are joining for great riches. The Minister made great play of the changes to armed forces pay levels—that is to be welcomed; all credit to the Ministry for bullying something out of the Treasury—but as the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) said in a wide-ranging speech, the pay is still far too low. It is quite pathetic that privates and lance-corporals on active service could be earning more money stacking shelves in Tesco, where the greatest threat to their lives is likely to be a can of beans dropping on their feet. That is really quite a scandal. The Minister may well be right that armed forces pay has improved, but, by God, it has a long way to go. Frankly, we do not pay these people nearly enough for the risks that they have to face. We have already talked extensively about housing conditions, so I do not want to labour the point. However, I do believe that we have a duty to ensure that the kit deployed, particularly to those in active theatre, is the very best possible. When Ministers say that everything is pretty good, and when the Prime Minister always says that our troops can have anything they want, it is easy to be rather confused when on an almost fortnightly or monthly basis we also read reports of senior officers and those serving with practical experience saying that their impression on the field is not quite the same as the impression given by Ministers to this House. There is clearly a bit of a mismatch between what Ministers think is happening in the field and what our soldiers are actually experiencing. Are the risks to our armed forces greater than they once were? At the moment, they are most certainly greater than they were during the cold war. Are the rewards better? In fairness to the Government, it would not be right to say that it is all doom and gloom, but there have been additions and changes that do not make it any easier to be a soldier—particularly a soldier—today. During one Prime Minister’s Question Time, I criticised the Prime Minister in respect of the intervention of the Attorney-General. I suggested that it was pretty hard for a young 18 to 19-year-old soldier to be looking ahead for a sniper on the streets of Basra, while having to look behind his back to the Attorney-General. That may well have been a rather facetious example to put to the Prime Minister, but I hope that the point was made and taken. It is quite difficult, particularly for very young people on active service, to cope with legal pressures, which were never placed to the same extent on previous generations. An important part of our duty of care relates to medical provision, which I thought my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring was right to concentrate on. It is all very well for Ministers to say that it is all about the press niggling. The reports we read this weekend from Colonel Parker about what is going on should give pause for thought about how casevac—casualty evacuation—is actually operating. Undoubtedly, the mental health pressures, particularly on those who are not returning to regimental bases—for example, those in the Territorial Army—should be taken more seriously. Helicopters may already have been flogged to death, but it has to be said again that they are a very important part of modern warfare. There is a widespread and genuine feeling among the armed forces that they are being let down in that regard. One area that we hardly ever mention in the House is particularly important to how the infantry operates—the works of the regimental associations. My own regiment, the Light Infantry, is now called the Rifles. Names come and go and everybody accepts that that is part of life. However, for most of those who serve now and who have served in the past, the most important thread of consistency comes from the work of the regimental associations. They often have a very small staff indeed, but a great deal of voluntary work goes on, too, to ensure that there is a continuing sense of belonging to the regiment. It is also worth putting on record the thanks of the House to the benevolent charities for the armed forces. They do an amazing job in raising funds and getting help to people very quickly. I hope that the Minister will not take this as a criticism of his Department, because it is not meant unkindly, but there is a belief that the armed forces charities react much more quickly to immediate need than the Department does. I am sure that there are obvious reasons for that, including the pressures and regulations that Government Departments face in relation to the way in which they operate. It seems sad, none the less, that a regimental charity can react almost instantly to the demands of someone in need while the Department seems to grind on at a much slower pace even though a bit of speed is desperately needed. As we hold the Minister and his Friends to account this afternoon, we must ask whether the Government have failed. I do not think that it would be fair to say that they had, but the Minister must understand that the demands that he and his party have placed on our armed forces have been exceptionally high. The duty of care that is placed on him and his colleagues must therefore be even higher.