HC Deb 26 November 1996 vol 286 cc143-4
9. Mr. Home Robertson

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the effects of overstretch in the Army. [4317]

Mr. Soames

A third of the Army is deployed on, preparing for, or recovering from operations. Although I am conscious of this high level of commitment, which inevitably places a strain on soldiers and their families, I am confident that the Army remains supremely capable of meeting all its main tasks.

Mr. Home Robertson

Is it not a fact that the Government are taking liberties with our soldiers in the armed forces and damaging their morale by increasing their work load at the same time as cutting their resources? Would I be far wrong if I were to suggest that the resident battalions in Northern Ireland are, on average, 80 men under strength, that soldiers there must spend 51 per cent. of nights away from their quarters and that the average number of hours worked a week by a soldier is 98.6? The Minister may use the term "busy", but those are intolerable conditions for our soldiers in Northern Ireland and elsewhere.

Mr. Soames

The hon. Gentleman is always wrong on these matters and, today, he is wrong again. That was a misquoted farrago and tissue of innuendo and hopeless, incompetent fact. The Army's morale is extremely high. The Army is very busy, and that is one reason why its morale is high. Of course we are conscious of the fact that we can ask too much of our people, and that is why we take great care of their families and of them. Our people are well trained, well motivated and well equipped, and they do a wonderful job. The hon. Gentleman's portrayal is a fatuous travesty.

Mr. Brazier

Although I am glad to hear my hon. Friend's comments on overstretch, does he agree that one way in which we could be certain to make the situation very much worse would be to cut defence and to take on all sorts of extra third-world commitments—the type of programme that we could expect from a Labour Government?

Mr. Soames

My hon. Friend is right. As he knows, the nature and scale of the commitments that the armed forces of the Crown are invited to undertake are subject to the most rigorous and detailed scrutiny, particularly because our regular forces—which are all volunteer—are already heavily committed. The British Army will remain what it has always been: a supremely professional armed force, capable of high-intensity land battle, and not what it would be under the Labour party—some type of super-gendarmerie.

Dr. Reid

What a load of codswallop. Will the Minister confirm reports that, under the Government, even the SAS is short of recruits—recruitment has plummeted and its members are leaving—and that that dates from when the Secretary of State pledged his undying allegiance to the SAS, at the Tory party conference? Is it true that, last year, we were 3,000 soldiers short, and that the Minister pledged to redouble his efforts? He has redoubled them, but with what result? He has doubled the shortage. There is no problem that the Government, when they put their mind to it, cannot make worse.

Mr. Soames

That is a very silly little intervention, and I do not think that anyone will take it seriously. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that that is not the case. Recruitment is up 35 per cent. this year on last, enlistments are way ahead, and the only limitation on recruits for the airborne or the special forces will be the ability of those who undertake the selection test to pass it.