House of Commons Hansard Debates for 24 Feb 1993

Column 960

the history of the Tory Government handling of the Army. He described the entire process of "Options for Change" ; options they are not and cannot be as they are framed. He was kind to the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, who had the temerity to suggest there was some logic or continuity in the Government's policy for the Army. If he believes that, he does not know much about what is going on in his own Department, and there is evidence for that as well. It was only on 12 January, reported in column 758 of Hansard, that the Minister of State said about the size of the Army : "I do not think that we are talking about a review of the proposals for the amalgamation of regiments under Options for Change'. We still feel that we have the right number of regiments. We do not think that long-term commitments have changed sufficiently to want to change that."--[ Official Report, 12 January 1993 ; Vol. 216, c. 758.]

Three short weeks later, the Secretary of State for Defence told the House :

"I have been considering for a number of months"--

not weeks, months--

"with my military advisers"--

but evidently not with the Minister of State--

"the need to adjust the force levels set out by my right hon. Friend."-- [ Official Report, 3 February 1993 ; Vol. 218, c. 319.]

Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) : Does my hon. Friend think that the Minister perhaps recognised the inconsistency between paragraphs 326 and 327 of the 1992 statement. Paragraph 326 says : "During the process manpower shortages are likely to persist" and then leaps on in paragraph 327 to say :

"manpower reductions will be achieved by natural wastage." Perhaps the House should be grateful for that.

Mr. Home Robertson : There are a number of manifest inconsistencies in the way in which the MOD has dealt with such matters. I hope that the unanimous view expressed in the House may lead the Ministry to think again. Either the Minister of State for the Armed Forces genuinely had not a clue about what was going on, or he was being as economical with the truth as he has been with the Army over the years.

In an eloquent intervention, the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) said that everything that had happened recently--including the add- back of the two battalions--was consistent with his plan. If that was the plan, it was a "cunning plan" worthy of Private Baldrick himself. We have had enough Baldricks in the MOD for the time being ; it is time to use some common sense in these affairs. I welcome the fact that the present Secretary of State has begun to move, but he needs to move that little bit further. Those two cancelled amalgamations are not enough ; we shall need to add back more and examine the Select Committee's evidence about overstretch. According to any analysis, overstretch is already a feature of the circumstances in which our Army finds itself. We have heard about the emergency tour interval, nights out of bed, the need for training and, crucially--this was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) and the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes)-- our leading role in the NATO ACE rapid reaction corps. This is supposed to be a multinational standing force, trained, equipped and ready to react rapidly. How can it possibly do that if the leading

Column 961

element from the British Army is tied up on the streets of Northern Ireland, or undertaking other duties? It simply does not make sense. That covers the general aspect, but I wish to raise two specific points. One may be trivial, but the other is very important. I tried to intervene on the Minister of State for the Armed Forces at the beginning of the debate, when he was talking about redundancies in the Army. The subject was raised with me by a number of non-commissioned officers in the Cheshire regiment when I met them last week in Vitez, in Bosnia. I met some people who had volunteered for redundancy. They said that, had they known that their regiment would not be amalgamated, they would not have volunteered for redundancy. They hoped to have an opportunity to withdraw their applications for voluntary redundancy because they wanted to continue to serve with their regiment--and I have no doubt that the same would apply to my people from the King's Own Scottish Borderers and the Royal Scots.

Mr. Archie Hamilton : In such circumstances, people can appeal against their redundancies, and their appeals will be considered.

Mr. Home Robertson : I am grateful to the Minister. I hope that appeals made in the circumstances that I have described will be accepted and looked on favourably. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) is in his place : he has a number of Cheshires in his constituency. No doubt he listened carefully to that intervention.

My other point is one that should have been made at the time of the Crimean war. It concerns problems with Army boots. I was disturbed to hear soldiers in Bosnia say that they had to buy their own boots, because standard-issue Army boots are not insulated against the cold, and leak. That should not be necessary. I suppose that, at the time of the Crimean war, left boots were sent out, and it was possible to have a waterproof left boot and an insulated right boot ; but why cannot the Army get it right now? The point may sound trivial, but I think that it deserves an answer.

8.54 pm

Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury) : I welcome the opportunity to speak. First, I shall make a few comments about the Regular Army ; I shall then focus on the Territorial Army.

I greatly welcome the personal style that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has brought to the Ministry of Defence ; I know that it is much appreciated in the armed forces. Like other speakers, I believe that the armed forces--and, indeed, the Army are severely overstretched. Although the welcome announcement made a fortnight ago will help, serious overstretch will remain. The proportion of gross domestic product allocated to defence has fallen from just over 5 per cent. in the mid 1980s to a projected 3.3 per cent. in two years' time. The level of commitments that we are trying to face has not fallen commensurately.

Unlike earlier speakers, I recognise that the Treasury has distinct problems with public spending, about which I have spoken in another debate. For that reason, I think that we must recognise where our priorities should lie. I believe that what differentiates the Conservative party

Column 962

from the Opposition parties is not concern about the armed forces, which is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House, or a willingness to become involved in a range of different peacekeeping and other operations in different parts of the world--I believe that our forces are involved with the United Nations in 14 such operations. What differentiates the Conservative party from the others is its absolute commitment to maintaining firm defences for Britain and western Europe, both nuclear and conventional. At a time when eastern Europe, the ex-Soviet states and the middle east are in turmoil, and when nuclear technology and possibly even nuclear weaponry are spreading into ever more irresponsible hands, we must be quite clear that, if we cannot find more money for our projected defence expenditure--in other words, reduce the level of planned reduction--we must cut the fringe commitments. We must look at our commitments, from Bosnia to Cambodia--those 14 United Nations commitments and our military training missions, and others. A single figure says it all. The percentage of the defence budget spent on equipment this year will be 37, the lowest level since we took office in 1979. This cannot be commensurate with smaller and better. We cannot, within the existing defence budget, have a higher level of projected manpower for that reason : the commitments must be reduced unless more money can be found.

There is a danger that, within the Army, people will begin to feel either increasingly cynical--the phrase "smaller and bitter" is going around--or, more likely, because I have the greatest admiration for our armed forces, will experience the more workmanlike and everyday but nevertheless equally dangerous feeling that we should get on with the immediate, short-term problems and forget about the longer term. That wearied feeling is more likely.

The danger there is that we shall do a superb job in Bosnia, that we shall do whatever is required by way of RAF supply runs in Somalia, that our 350 people in Cambodia will continue to do excellent work, but that our commitment to the rapid reaction corps, which is so central to the defence of western Europe, and our ability to fund projects that I regard as essential--Opposition Members may not agree--such as the tactical nuclear weapons system TASM, will be diminished or completely eroded.

Mr. McWilliam : Will the hon. Gentleman please explain his rationale, given that most of our commitment to the rapid reaction corps at any given time is on duty in Northern Ireland anyway? It cannot be in two places at once.

Mr. Brazier : The hon. Gentleman is right to some extent. There is such a level of Army overstretch at the moment that it is not possible for some units to train properly for the rapid reaction corps. If the hon. Gentleman had been listening to my speech, he would have heard me suggest that the solution is to reduce some of those commitments. The large number of commitments that we have to the United Nations are examples. I do not know how many hon. Members knew that we have 350 people in Cambodia until the fact appeared recently in a paper. Our central commitment must be to the defence of Britain and western Europe.

Column 963

On to the Territorial Army, I am sorry to have to deliver more bad news, but I believe that an opportunity was missed in 1991. I, for one, welcome the news from the Ministry of Defence that the Government are planning to look again at the future of the reserve forces. A proper survey should have been done in 1991, and should certainly be done now, to establish how to achieve better value from our reserve forces--in particular, the TA--drawing on lessons from abroad. Alas, two years ago, a team led by regular officers, the leading one of whom had never served in a TA unit, carried out a review. That review was based on theoretical criteria and was then negotiated in detail with the TAVRs, which are obviously very conscious of what is happening on their own patches. It is not good enough for such a review to be based on theoretical considerations rather than practical matters.

The Director General TA and Organisation, to whom I have just referred, in a submission to the Select Committee about the criteria on the basis of which TA units were selected for survival, spoke of "their links with regular units, the territorial balance in a particular area, recruiting trends, the availability of TA centres, historical factors, regimental factors and local links."

At no point in any document that I have seen is the issue of the quality of the units concerned touched on. Amazingly, some of the weakest units in the Territorial Army--I could mention names, but it would be invidious to do so --were retained, although they were down to an effective 30 per cent. of their strength, whereas some of the best units were earmarked for disbandment simply because they did not fit the theoretical, geographical and other criteria that I have mentioned.

As a result, there has been a significant loss of morale in many parts of the TA. There has also been a loss of key personnel and an increase in turnover. We see the beginning of a vicious circle, with an unhealthy reaction between the regular command structure and the TA units concerned. The Regular Army's expectation of the TA has progressively dropped, and in some cases the TA is starting to fulfil the lower expectations. A number of very good units remain, but there are fewer of them.

It must be recognised that we shall never be able to fund everything we want in the Regular forces. The cost of a TA unit is between one fifth and one seventh of the cost of its regular counterpart. Reservists can make very high-quality units. Let me give two examples. In the last war, the most highly decorated company-size unit was a territorial unit ; two years ago, the highest-scoring tank battalion in the Gulf was an American marine reservist unit. We should have asked ourselves two years ago, and we should certainly be asking ourselves now, why large parts of the TA are not performing as well as they could. Why, for example, is TA turnover in Britain 30 per cent. and rising? In Australia, where the resource base for units is much lower--there are fewer permanent staff and an even lower man- training-day allocation--the turnover is 22 per cent. and falling.

I welcome the fresh approach that Ministers are bringing to this question, and I cannot stress sufficiently the fact that I welcome their intention to look again at the Territorial Army. However, I should like to make a point to them and, through them, to the Regular Army and the chiefs of staff. Eighteen months ago, Lord Bramall said

Column 964

that, with the disappearance of the national service generation over the next few years, the Regular Army will be in serious danger of cultural isolation and of finding that there are fewer and fewer people in the world who understand what defence is about and what armed forces are for. It would be very short-sighted and unwise for our extremely high quality but very small professional forces to believe that they can maintain their central position in the esteem and affection of the people of this country in an extended period of peace without the support of the reserve forces whose members go on to become prominent figures in civic life and business and a few of whom even become hack Members of Parliament like myself.

I shall be brief in order to allow other hon. Members to speak who have extended a similar courtesy to me. I shall make four points about what went wrong in the review last time and which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State should reconsider this time. The first is their mistaken willingness to consider moving good units. Fortunately, most of the moves have not yet taken place. For example, the 73rd Signal Regiment, which has a multi-million pound specially equipped drill hall, is due to be moved from Bexley to Bracknell. That will not only entail the loss of a new expensive facility but will mean losing most of the people because TA personnel cannot move far from their jobs and homes.

Secondly, I was astonished to learn that the document on the reserve forces, which was published a year ago, makes virtually no mention of the importance of leadership in the reserve forces, although that is the central drive of the excellent advertising programme of the National Employer Liaison Committee. We should ask why the TA standard officer training course at Mons lasts two weeks whereas the equivalent course in Australia last seven weeks. The third point is the duplication in the command structure of the reserve forces between London and Wilton. It is strange that we have a tri-service arrangement in London to look after the reserve forces, which are 90 per cent. Army, and a duplicated single service arrangement to look after that 90 per cent. in Wilton.

That brings me to my fourth observation on the review, which may cause concern in the Ministry of Defence and the Regular Army. However, I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend has the freshness and openness of approach to re-examine the question. It is an extraordinary anomaly that Britain is the only country in the English-speaking world whose director of reserve forces is not a reservist. The last director of the reserves had never even served in a reserve unit. I do not blame him as an individual ; it was not his fault.

We now have a great opportunity, and I am delighted that my right hon. and learned Friend is reconsidering the reserve forces. I suggest that a quick way, involving no cost, to give an immediate lift to morale in the reserve forces and to convince them that a new practical approach will be adopted is to recruit someone who has achieved a certain eminence in civilian life and has served a successful period in the reserve forces. Such a person should drive forward the change process and the new blueprint for the TA.

Column 965

9.8 pm

Mr. Bruce Grocott (The Wrekin) : I do not intend to engage in the wider issues considered by so many hon. Members in the debate. I know that I must be brief, but I am grateful for the opportunity to raise two issues involving my constituency but with wider implications. I hope that they are also of general interest.

It is my privilege to represent the people who work at the Donington depot, which, for more than 50 years, has given outstanding service to the defence services, not only during the second world war but in more recent conflicts in the Falklands and the Gulf and now by supplying equipment to operations in the former Yugoslavia. Relations between the civilians who work at Donington and the Ministry have always been extremely good. The service provided by the workers there has been outstanding and the depot has been an important source of employment, particularly for engineering apprentices at the 34 base workshops. The workshops have provided an excellent training ground for many years, and in the past morale there has been good.

The obsession of the Conservatives in recent years with contractorisation and privatisation, and the threat to jobs and the confidence of the people resulting from that trend, has been a persistent problem in the Donington depot. There have been all manner of threats, and even the security services there were at one time threatened with contractorisation.

I shall not tonight rehearse all the arguments against contractorisation, which are overwhelming and well known to the House. I urge the Government to acknowledge that constant meddling in affairs locally has a deeply depressing effect on the morale of the work force.

I have written to the Minister of State several times pointing out that if the Government persist with constant changes which involve threats to people's terms and conditions, it is incumbent on them to have the fullest consultation with the workers before changes take place.

A characteristic of the Donington depot has been the strength and skill of the union representation. Conservative Members often indulge in smears about union membership. At Donington, the Transport and General Workers Union and the engineering and white collar unions have always been extremely well represented and closely involved in decision making. They have worked closely with the management and have negotiated successfully on behalf of their members.

While I speak with pride on behalf of those unions, I urge the Government to accept that it is essential, when changes are proposed, that there is adequate consultation with all concerned. I am sure that members of the local management echo that view. We constantly have the feeling that decisions are made in London without reference to the people who live and work locally.

The only other issue I shall raise tonight, because of the shortage of time, may be regarded by the House as somewhat esoteric and might be thought to relate particularly to my constituency. Hon. Members will appreciate how one can, almost by accident, discover something in one's constituency, only later to appreciate that it has wider implications. A couple of years ago I heard from people working at the depot and others in my constituency about plans to close a two-mile rail link from the depot to the main line.

Column 966

I objected to the plan, for all sorts of reasons. It seemed common sense that we should encourage rail transport, being safer, more predictable, more environmentally friendly and because it relieved clutter on the motorways. I objected strongly, but without success. I followed that up with a series of parliamentary questions, for I wondered whether it was a narrow constituency point or was part of a pattern. I asked the Secretary of State for Defence

"what proportion of Ministry of Defence freight is being carried by ( a ) road and ( b ) rail".

I was given the sort of predictable answer that I expected : "A detailed breakdown of the proportions moved by road and rail could not be provided without incurring disproportionate cost".--[ Official Report, 15 October 1991 ; Vol. 196, c. 143. ]

It is appropriate that the Secretary of State should be present tonight. No one can be better placed, as a former Secretary of State for Transport, to note what I am saying on this issue. After all, we listened with interest to his statements when he was Secretary of State for Transport, when he spoke about the importance of rail transport and the need to move traffic from road to rail. I recently asked the Secretary of State for Defence

"what plans he has to encourage the use of rail for freight by Ministry of Defence depots."

The reply was :

"My Department uses the most convenient and cost effective methods to transport freight and has no plans to favour the use of rail over any other method of transport."--[ Official Report, 2 June 1992 ; Vol. 208, c. 527. ]

It is amazing how Ministers shift Departments and fairly rapidly shift their values.

The most interesting of all the replies was that which I received when I tried to find out what had happened to Ministry of Defence use of the railways since the Government came to office. I asked a couple of simple questions, the first of which was how many diesel locomotives were maintained and operated by the MOD in 1979 and in 1991. The answer was that there were 176 in 1979 and 106 in 1991. Perhaps the most important question that I asked was how many Ministry of Defence depots had rail links when the Government came to power, and how many had them now. The answer was that, when the Government came to power, 38 depots had rail links but that now only 21 have them. The arithmetic is fairly simple--the number has been almost halved. I also asked for a list of the depots that had lost their rail links, and there was a whole string of them all over the country, including :

"Regional Depot Aldershot ; Ordnance Support Unit Ashford ; OSU Burscough ; Royal Air Force Carlisle ; Central Ordnance Depot Donington"--

as I said, that is in my constituency--

"Royal Naval Stores Depot Eaglecliffe ; RD Hereford ; OSU Hessay ; RAF Quedgeley ; Procurement and Experimental Establishment Shoeburyness ; RAF Stafford ; RD Stirling ; RD Thatcham ; RD Thursk, RD Warcop ; OSU Warminster".--[ Official Report, 14 October 1991 ; Vol. 196, c. 63. ]

When the Secretary of State for Defence was Secretary of State for Transport, he told us how important it was to use rail rather than road for freight carriage. The Ministry of Defence is the one area in which even this freewheeling, free-market Government have direct control over what means of transport are used to carry large amounts of freight--and the MOD's record is appalling. At the very least, it should maintain the track beds of the rail links that it has closed and encourage their reopening, especially the rail link at Donington in my constituency.

Column 967

9.16 pm

Mr. Eric Martlew (Carlisle) : This has been a strange debate. There have been more attacks on the Government from Conservative Members than from Opposition Members. Ministers must think that they have parachuted behind enemy lines. They have been subjected to a series of shots which can only be described as "friendly fire".

Parliament is telling the Ministers that they are wrong and should change their policies. Before I go into detail, I shall put on record the thanks of Labour Front-Bench spokesmen and, I am sure, of the whole House, to the Select Committee not only for its excellent report--although I am not sure whether Ministers will thank the Committee for it--but for the fact that the members of the Committee went to Bosnia. When one is elected a Member of Parliament, one expects that security will become a bit tighter, but to fly into a war zone requires some bravery.

If those hon. Members had not gone to Bosnia, the debate would not have been as informative. It is important that Members of Parliament continue to make such visits and report back to the House what is actually happening on the ground. I am sure that none of those hon. Members has been accused of having gone on a jaunt this time--and that not many of their constituents would have wished to go with them. The next time that they are accused of having holidays in work time, they should invite people to go to Bosnia with them.

I was most impressed by the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid). The way in which he dissected the Government's arguments will make the people who work and serve in the armed forces and who read his speech wish that he was in government and that Ministers were in opposition. It was an excellent speech. I am sure that it will be read in regiments throughout the land, and that people will say, "That is the way forward. If only we had elected a Labour Government."

There is no argument on the Opposition side about the nuclear test ban treaty. Hon. Members have said that we need to stop testing nuclear weapons. I predict that, within two years, the Government will stop testing and that, if they do not stop it, President Clinton will stop it for them. So let us stop testing nuclear weapons and keep our dignity.

The Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), made a withering attack on the Government. He did it in a nice way, but it was effective. It was even more effective because it came from the Conservative Benches.

Mr. Frank Cook : He is blushing.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor : It is just modesty.

Mr. Martlew : Modesty has rarely prevented me from saying anything, so I shall continue.

The right hon. Member for Bridgewater (Mr. King) told us that "Options for Change" was all a cunning plan. yes, I am sure that it was devised by that military man Captain Blackadder and his batman. We have seen that "Options for Change" was an option for anything. It was not a defence review but a quick fix, which is coming apart before our very eyes. That has been pointed out by other hon. Members.

My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) expounded Labour party policy on the

Column 968

nuclear test ban treaty, and he was dead right. He was also correct about the scandalous position with regard to defence lands. There is a need to provide access to the countryside, but we seem to be tying up more and more defence land instead of releasing it.

Mr. Brazier : Will the hon. Gentleman explain how he squares his party's line on the overstretch of manpower with saying that there should be less defence land for the armed forces? Presumably, if there are to be more armed forces, they need more land on which to train. They are already overstretched.

Mr. Martlew : That question is based on the premise that the armed forces do not have too much land now. Many of us would maintain that, ever since the end of the second world war, the armed forces have held on to too much land and should release even more.

The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), who is not in his place, made a courageous speech. I just hope that he is never called back to the colours, because if he is, he will not be promoted, at the very least.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) made a major speech about Bosnia. He is not noted for agreeing with Conservative Members but he agreed with the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill). That gives more credence to his views. We are united in saying that "Options for Change" is wrong. The only people who say different are on the Government Front Bench.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) made an important point about redundancies. Although the Minister intervened, I was not happy with his explanation. People from the Cheshire Regiment volunteered for redundancy because their regiment was to be amalgamated. Then fortunately, as everyone would agree, the correct decision was made not to amalgamate the regiment. The people who volunteered for redundancy have been told that they can appeal against redundancy. They should be able to withdraw their applications for redundancy, because they applied on the premise that the regiment would disappear.

It turned out, as a result of the Government's incompetence, to be a false premise. I hope that in his reply the Minister will change his view and say that any member of any regiment that has been saved who applied for redundancy will have the opportunity to withdraw the application. That would be only fair. I suspect that the answer will be negative. Perhaps the Minister will surprise me.

Mr. Archie Hamilton : I am uncertain about what is unfair about appealing, and having that appeal considered sympathetically.

Mr. Martlew : I shall tease the Minister a little more to get something more out of him. Is he giving us a commitment that any member of the armed forces who, having applied for redundancy in the regiments that have now been saved, appeals against that redundancy will have that appeal granted?

Mr. Hamilton : I am saying that such people will be able to appeal against redundancy on the ground that the basis on which they applied for redundancy was that their regiment was going to be amalgamated. One cannot say that anything is automatic. The appeal will be considered on the grounds on which it is made.

Column 969

Mr. Martlew : Again, I suspect that there are one or two weasel words there. We shall take the Minister as an honourable man, and we shall monitor the position. We shall come back to the House if we find that people are having their appeals turned down. I am sure that the matter will be viewed with great interest by the regiments concerned.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott), first for mentioning my constituency, which is always a good thing, and secondly for bringing to the attention of the House a different aspect. The civilian side of the Ministry of Defence and of the Army is important, as is the morale of those people. I know of the efforts that they put in, especially during crises. I also know of the hard work of the trade unions at the depots.

We have heard a lot today about what is wrong with the Army. We accept that people who sign up for our armed forces, especially for the Army, are different in many ways from people who join armies in other countries of the Alliance. For the past 25 years, the soldiers of the United Kingdom have unfortunately had to go on active service in Northern Ireland. They may join up because of unemployment or because of a sense of adventure, but they do not join up because it is an easy option. We accept that they are brave people to join up, so we believe that they deserve respect and support, which they get from Opposition Members.

Although we must accept that there has been an end to the cold war, which must mean radical changes, there is a feeling that there is a lack of leadership at the very top. I am not talking about the generals, but about Ministers. What the Government have done has turned the Army into a bad employer. It is getting very much like the cowboy security firms, which give people a fancy uniform but then do not take care of their basic needs.

The Government are cutting soldiers' pay this year--a point to which I shall return. They are introducing compulsory redundancies and evicting former soldiers from their homes. They have failed to make adequate provision for rehousing former soldiers. They have decreased the length of time between dangerous tours of duty. They have failed over overseas allowances. They have failed to define the role of women in the Army. Above all, they have failed to generate a belief that those in charge know what they are doing. I repeat that I am talking not about the generarls, but about the Minister of State, about the Secretary of State and about the Prime Minister.

Mr. Colvin : The hon. Gentleman believes--and I agree--that we have problems. Surely there are even greater problems in NATO as a whole. The role of our Army must be looked at in terms of its job within NATO. It has been mentioned that other member states in NATO are cutting their defence forces even more than we are. In the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1992", my right hon. and learned Friend showed in table 4 that the cuts in the armed forces across NATO were on average 23 per cent. between 1990 and 1995. In the British Army, cuts amounted to only 20 per cent. We have now persuaded our Secretary of State to restore some of the proposed cuts. Is it not even more important to persuade our NATO allies to take another look at their proposed cuts too?

Mr. Martlew : That would appear to be a failure on the part of the Ministry of Defence and of the Foreign

Column 970

Secretary. The fact is that we must put our own house in order. We are talking about a decline in the quality of life of the British soldiers--I think that the hon. Gentleman will accept that that is the problem.

We need to raise morale by giving the Army a commitment. I fear that the Government give commitments only to the Treasury. Such improvements as they have made in the system have been done in a mean-minded way. For instance, the reduction in the secrecy surrounding boards of inquiry, and soldiers' ability to claim compensation from the Ministry of Defence have been effected in a mealy-mouthed manner, and if I have time, I will give examples. I realise that I have made a long list of charges, and that they will need to be substantiated. I am sure that I will be accused of being a barrack-room lawyer--not a title that I would reject if it means that I am seen as a supporter of justice and fair play for our service personnel.

In a reply to me from the Dispatch Box, the Secretary of State said that service men would accept an increase in pay of 1.5 per cent. Does he realise that that is a greater cut than all other Government employees face? I arrive at that conclusion on the basis of the retail prices index. Headline inflation is running at 1.7 per cent., and seen against that, a 1.5 per cent. increase does not seem too bad. It is only 1.7 per cent., however, because of a big drop in mortgage rates. The underlying rate of inflation is 3.4 per cent., and soldiers, of course, tend not to have mortgages. So the Government are in effect reducing the pay of our soldiers by almost 2 per cent. this year.

The Secretary of State did nothing to stop this. He must have been aware of the retail prices index. Tories have praised the bravery of our soldiers, but they have cut their pay.

Mr. Ian Bruce : The hon. Gentleman has been misrepresenting what I was going to say. I firmly believe that the Treasury was right to ask for cuts in the Ministry of Defence budget. It is extraordinary of the hon. Gentleman to suggest that the budget should not have been cut in any way. Where would the Labour party have made the cuts that it promised at the election?

Mr. Martlew : I am delighted to tell the hon. Gentleman that the Labour party would not have cut the wages of British soldiers. We have already discussed compulsory redundancy notices for 628 officers. That was not a new announcement ; in fact, it emerged in a written reply quite some time ago, on 10 December. So despite deciding to save two battalions the Government have not been prepared to reconsider these redundancies. They simply took the decision that the officers were to go, and that was it. They are so arrogant that they take away people's jobs and careers, without giving the matter a second thought.

There has also been confusion over housing. This year, a record 22 members of the armed forces were evicted. No provision has been made for returning soldiers and local authorities are in deep trouble with housing. I appreciate that the Government have introduced a new scheme to help soldiers and other service personnel to buy their houses, but they did so ten years too late, and it is no good to those people who will be told tomorrow that they are to be made redundant : it will not help them one bit.

The Government even seem to be cheating our troops over overseas allowances. If they work for the United

Column 971

Nations in Cambodia, they get a subsistence allowance of $145 a day--from the United Nations--but if they work for the United Nations, through the British Government, in Bosnia, they get next to nothing. Finally, the Government's failure to follow the Labour party's advice and to have a total defence review, and the "Options for Change" proposals have made the Government a laughing stock within the Army, especially their proposal to decrease the number of infantry battalions from 55 to 38. That proposal has been exposed as unrealistic, and was based on flawed facts. That is why the Secretary of State had to make a statement to the House on 3 February to reinstate two of those battalions, but that is not enough. The Tory-dominated Defence Select Committee has said that there should not be any amalgamations or disbandments. It has also been said that the stress and strain of overstretch is a serious threat to life and family life, because of the grossly reduced intervals between tours of duty, and that cannot continue. If the Secretary of State is to remain credible, we need an immediate defence review. This is not the first time that we have had such a debate--it has happened many times. There was a similar debate in 1794, when William Pitt was Prime Minister. The Commander -in-Chief of the Army was having major problems in Flanders. The event is remembered to this day in the jingle "The Grand Old Duke of York". Hon. Members know the rhyme :

"The grand old Duke of York,

He had 10,000 men,

He marched them up to the top of the hill,

And he marched them down again."

Does that not remind hon. Members of someone? The Secretary of State had 55 battalions, he decided to take them down to 38 battalions and now he has said that he will take them back up to 40 battalions, while the Select Committee says that he should not have touched them at all. The British Army does not know whether it is coming or going.

The grand old Duke of York resigned on that occasion, although he was reinstated because his brother was King George III. Perhaps the Secretary of State should do the same tonight.

9.38 pm

Next Section

Home Page