House of Commons Hansard Debates for 1 Jul 1999 (pt 26)

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman must use the correct parliamentary language.

Mr. Hancock: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The Minister will appreciate that the inquiries into the crash did not establish how the contamination occurred, and answers to parliamentary questions have not established how it happened. I am sure that the Minister must have been told how the Chinook's hydraulic system was contaminated and what part that might have played in causing the crash.

Mr. Key: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has also taken up this cause, on which there is cross-party agreement. All three main parties have considered the matter most carefully, and we understand the sensitive situation faced by Ministers. It is extremely difficult for them, but it cannot be allowed to go away. A fundamental injustice has been done to those two young men and their families. This is not, as the hon. Gentleman knows, simply a matter of arguments about technology and computer software; there is also a question about legal processes in Scotland and in England. The case will continue, and I hope that Ministers will realise that they must consider it in a new light.

Mr. Hancock: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's support. His colleagues on the Select Committee were very supportive when I tried to persuade the Committee to consider the matter. I shall work with them and hon. Members from both sides of the House to try to get justice for Jonathan Tapper and Rick Cook. We can do nothing for them except restore to them the honour that they deserve. The RAF should want to pay that debt of honour to them. I hope that Ministers will do all that they can to prevail on people in the Ministry of Defence to allow a third inquiry to take place and questions to be answered. People have a legitimate reason for asking those questions and for expecting them to be answered correctly in due course.

I welcomed the remarks of the Minister for the Armed Forces about the role of the Military Provost Guard Service and his recommended changes. As I said in my

1 Jul 1999 : Column 504

intervention, those changes are reasonable, sensible and long overdue. We should welcome the redeployment of 1,600 service personnel in a role that will be much more rewarding and fulfilling for them and the nation's defence.

The issue of the military defence police remains to be resolved, and the hon. Member for Walsall, South was right to flag that up again. I know from my involvement with MOD policemen in my area that they will want to comment on their future.

In the past few months, we have had three or four opportunities to discuss defence-related issues. We know that no one could have predicted the dramatic and dreadful consequences of the collapse in the stability of the former Yugoslav republics.

As a nation, we are fully committed to playing our part. We will not be out of Bosnia--with the best will in the world, a sensitive presence will be required--for a decade or more to come. At least a generation will have had to grow up with some semblance of peace before Bosnia is secure. The democratic processes there are not stable; we need to give much more help.

It is obvious to anyone who has even just glimpsed at the situation in Kosovo that the province will be a volatile issue for years to come. Our on-going commitment must a be real and proper one. The style of soldiering will undoubtedly change, but the requirement for a British presence is apparent to all.

We would be foolish if we did not think that that will have a knock-on effect on the defence capabilities of the British armed forces--whether naval personnel providing air support in the Adriatic or men and women on the ground. Such support will go on, but at a price. That price will be continued overstretch. Equipment will continue to be run down and deficits in training will continue to open. To address such problems, we must secure the commitment that the procurement budget will not degenerate into farce.

When the report was published last year, Ministers said that it was not their responsibility and that it was about the failure of the outgoing Tory Government. This year's report is about this Government's performance. It has examined their performance and, my God, it has not been much better--has it?

Something must be done, and in a way that gives the men and women of our armed forces confidence that they will get the kit and equipment that they need, that they will get it on time and that they will not have to pay a price for it by continuing to have to work, undermanned time and again, in pretty dour conditions, often with substandard equipment.

We owe our forces more than that. As the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) said, if we are to say, "Thank you", we must do so in a way that they can believe. The best way is to deliver the best equipment at the best price and on time. We must get that right, and get the equipment to them now, when they need it. If not, morale problems in our armed forces will deteriorate. The one thing of which we are all sure--are we not?--is that overstretch is having a dramatic effect not only on families but on the men and women who are at the sharp end of our armed forces. Before long, they will tell us so by leaving the armed forces in increasing numbers, and we will not be able to stop it.

1 Jul 1999 : Column 505

5 pm

Mr. John Grogan (Selby): I shall make three points in a brief contribution to this debate.

First, I shall address the role of women in our armed forces, the figures for which are now quite striking. Of all jobs in the Army, 70 per cent. are now open to women--as opposed to less than 50 per cent. a few years ago. Of jobs in the Royal Navy, 75 per cent. are open to women, as are 96 per cent. of jobs in the Royal Air Force.

If we are to inspire the generation of young women in schools such as Tadcaster grammar and Selby high school in my constituency to join the armed forces--those with an aptitude and skills with which they may make a contribution in the next century--we must recognise the role that women have played in our armed forces over many years, particularly during the second world war.

We are one of the few countries that fought in the second world war not to have a memorial to women who fought. In Australia, Canada, the United States and New Zealand there is such a war memorial, but in Britain all we have is an empty plinth in Trafalgar square. It is time that we filled that space, because it would inspire a generation of our young women to join the armed forces.

It is worth reflecting on the fact that 700,000 women fought in a variety of roles in the second world war. They were air gunners in Britain and pilots of unarmed planes abroad--Amy Johnson was killed flying such a plane. Women were agents behind enemy lines, too. Also, of course, they were members of the Women's Royal Voluntary Service and air raid protection wardens. That must be recognised.

Mr. Martlew: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend says, but I am sure that he did not mean to miss out those who worked in the munitions factories. I must declare an interest: my mother was badly injured in a munitions factory. It is time that the Government set up a memorial to the women whose major contribution enabled us to win the war.

Mr. Grogan: I agree.

Fairly recently, the Daily Mail pointed out that women who contributed to the war effort probably outnumbered men. We must recognise the roles played by the mothers and grandmas of today's young women if we are to inspire them.

I, like many hon. Members, welcome the commitment that has been made regarding Gurkhas' pensions. The figures are stark. Sergeant Balaram's widow will get an annual pension of £770. A British staff sergeant of equivalent rank would get £15,000. The words of Sergeant Balaram's widow, as reported in the Daily Mirror, struck a chord with me. She said:

"I am sure the British army will look after us--maybe."

There must be no "maybes". The only possible--the only really acceptable--outcome of the review would be full pension rights for Gurkhas. The 1947 tripartite agreement between Britain, India and Nepal need not be an obstacle to that. Amendments have been made to that agreement; further amendments can be made.

The issue of pensions for the Gurkhas reminded me of a case that came up in my constituency which, although it involved a very different group of people, shows that, when we talk of the armed forces, we should also think

1 Jul 1999 : Column 506

of the terms and conditions of the many people who may not be members of the armed forces but who support them in many different ways.

One of the first letters that I received when I was elected Member of Parliament for Selby was from Mrs. Sheila Steenson, a long-term unit cleaner at Imphal barracks in Fulford in York. She is employed on an agency basis by the Navy Institutes Army and Air Force, and she has the responsible job of cleaning very secure accommodation--the officers and sergeants messes. She gave me a surprising letter from the NAAFI pension fund, saying:

"Naafi carries out the cleaning tasks as agent for the Armed Services on repayment by them of all charges. They repay wages, and over the years they have developed a gratuity/terminal benefits system which we apply as agent. Because of this system, the category of Unit Cleaner has never been eligible to join the Naafi pension fund."

A gratuity terminal benefit system seems to me to be more appropriate for a student doing a holiday job in a restaurant than for someone who serves our armed forces for many years.

Very recently, after a long campaign headed by Mrs. Steenson, I was delighted to receive a letter from the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), confirming: