§ 8. Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire)What the current strength is of the Army. [122646]
§ The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar)The current strength of United Kingdom trained Army personnel as at 1 April 2000—the latest figures available—is 96,475, an increase of some 175 since 1 April 1999.
§ Mr. PatersonThat answer does not tell us what the adjutant-general told the Select Committee on Defence—that it will take 31 years to reach the target set by the strategic defence review. Will the Minister tell us three practical measures that he has taken that will accelerate this woeful progress?
§ Mr. SpellarYes, I can tell the hon. Gentleman of more than three practical measures. Let me say first, however, that an increase of 175 is a considerable improvement on previous figures, when there has been a steady run-down of forces numbers. That increase is a movement in the right direction.
Rightly, we are looking at the problems of retention. Many of those are down to communication with families. That is particularly the case in a time of full employment when other options are available. That is why we increased the time that can be taken to make telephone calls from three to 20 minutes a week. However, there is no point in having additional time if the telephones are not of an adequate quality. That is why we have introduced Project Welcome, which is of enormous benefit to our troops. When I was in Kosovo last week, the improvements were widely recognised. Similarly, in Sierra Leone we responded within two weeks.
Secondly, there is an increase in leave at the end of an operational tour so that personnel can spend more time with their families. There is also the bonus for those who have been on an extended operational tour. We have seen the introduction of e-mail—[Interruption.] It is interesting that Conservative Members can sit comfortably in the Chamber and be dismissive of improving communications between our service men and women and their families. That will be noted. Our troops work in difficult conditions and do a tremendous job, and Conservative Members could not give a damn.
§ Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston)My hon. Friend will recall that the Cheshire Regiment was one of the first to go into Bosnia some years ago. At the same time, the Staffordshire Regiment was located in the Dale Army camp in Cheshire. This situation brought to my attention a number of issues that my hon. Friend has raised, and especially the provision of telephones. I am pleased that that particular issue has been addressed.
The interesting feature in terms of the Staffordshire Regiment was the lack of support that the Army was then receiving in dealing with social problems—for example, children's special requirements. Will my hon. Friend assure me that he is taking action to ensure that there is 11 proper co-ordination so that the social support that Army families are entitled to receive will be available to them, unlike the provision under the previous Administration?
§ Mr. SpellarAs I have reported previously, there has been a considerable improvement in a number of areas that have been raised by the Army Families Federation so that we might improve conditions in the United Kingdom and those that apply to overseas postings, especially where the peculiar nature of service life and the demands that we put on service personnel and their families lead to their being disadvantaged when compared with the rest of the community. The feedback is that these improvements are having a considerable impact and beneficial effects on family life for service personnel.
We recognise that, with our increasingly expeditionary armed forces, television, telephones and e-mail—all of which the Opposition dismiss in their comfort—matter considerably to personnel. These facilities contribute very much to the greater welfare of our forces as part of the welfare package.
§ Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough)One of the consequences of the historic reduction in the size of the Army is that the Ministry of Defence has been able to dispense with and sell both land and property. One such example in my constituency is the town of South Wigston, where the Ministry, through Defence Estates, is getting rid of some real estate. However, before the contract has been completed, the residential developer has moved on to the site and is destroying trees and woods, for example, much to my concern and that of my constituents. Will the Minister please look into this matter to ensure that the developer is not doing what he should not before he has proper possession of the land? I do not expect the hon. Gentleman to give me a detailed answer now, but I would be most grateful if he wrote to me quickly.
§ Mr. Spellarrose—
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. That question hardly relates to the original Question. Minister, I am sure that you will give not an answer but a commitment to consider the matter. Is that right?
§ Mr. SpellarHow Neanderthal are Conservative Members? They have not even heard of e-mail. It would have been helpful to have notice of the supplementary question of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier). However, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who deals with Defence Estates, has taken note of the question. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will provide him with details, my hon. Friend will be more than pleased to take up the matter.