HL Deb 19 June 1980 vol 410 cc1293-306

7.27 p.m.

The MINISTER of STATE, MINISTRY of DEFENCE (Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal)

My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1980 laid before the House on 3rd June 1980 be approved. In the past, the moving of these renewal orders has sometimes been the opportunity for a general debate on defence matters and, in particular, for questions concerning the conditions of service in the forces. However, it is only recently that we had a general debate on defence, and I think it is, therefore, appropriate that I should confine myself to personnel matters today. But I will endeavour to answer any relevant questions which crop up during the course of any further debate which may rise.

Your Lordships will be aware that a new Armed Forces Act is required every five years and a continuation order, such as the present one, is proposed only in the intervening years. A new Armed Forces Bill will be introduced in the next Session of Parliament, which, once again, we are promised will be less onerous than this one, I am happy to say, and it would seem appropriate if I gave a brief account of the experience of the major changes that have been introduced under the 1976 Act: the extension of the powers of summary punishment available to commanding officers in the Army, the Royal Air Force and the Royal Marines, and the establishment of standing civilian courts to deal with civilians subject to the Army and Air Force Acts while serving overseas.

To take first the rather technical matter of summary powers, these have now been used on more than 400 occasions since 1977, and there has been a parallel reduction in the number of courts-martial during this period. So we are satisfied that the extended summary powers are fulfilling their purpose in avoiding the full administrative burden of a court-martial. The standing civilian courts were intended to provide a more appropriate form of tribunal for dealing with civilians overseas, akin to the magistrates' court in England. I can report that since the standing civilian courts came into operation there have been over 120 such trials involving over 170 accused, of whom a large proportion were juveniles. The operation of the standing civilian courts is generally considered to have been very successful, and full use has been made of the new sentencing powers granted under the 1976 Acts.

During the recent debate on the defence estimates, the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, and the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, referred to the possibility of arming servicewomen, and this present debate is perhaps an appropriate occasion to remind the House that we are considering allowing members of the women's services to carry arms for purely defensive purposes.

I must emphasise that there is no intention of employing servicewomen in combat roles, but even the limited arming would enhance the already considerable contribution that women make to our defence by removing barriers to a more flexible use of personnel. At present, employment opportunities for the WRAC have to be limited in the forward area of BAOR, and members of the WRAF cannot play a part in certain guard duties in an emergency.

This proposal would not, I think, be out of line with developments elsewhere, including some among our major allies, though I would not for one moment suggest that we should conform only for the sake of conforming. I fully recognise that this is an important issue about which many people hold very definite views. We are especially anxious that no decision should be taken before there has been every opportunity for public and Parliamentary opinion to be heard, so I stress that no decision has been taken. Indeed, noble Lords, Members of the other place and the public at large are most welcome to communicate with us and let us know their views.

I now turn briefly to the strengths of the services as a whole. I was able to tell the House on 8th May that we expected to have recruited over 50,000 service personnel in the year 1979–80. In fact, the total came to 50,652. That is an achievement bettered only once in 17 years. But as I said then, and as I would like to say again, even more important than recruiting is the question of retention. It is keeping the trained personnel which makes the whole difference to the effectiveness of our forces. It is difficult to achieve dramatic reductions in outflow, however attractive a service career is made. Nevertheless, we have achieved very substantial successes. The total outflow in 1979–80 was down by 8½ per cent., and I am particularly pleased that applications for premature voluntary retirement fell by one-third or so and are now running at levels similar to those experienced before the sharp increases in the 1977–78 period which caused us so many problems.

Of course, the maintenance of fully comparable pay for servicemen is a vital key in improving retention, but it is not the only factor. The other conditions of service also matter, and we are still looking for ways of making improvements, particularly in the field of housing. Sadly, there is not by any means an unlimited pool of money available to finance improvements. It has to come from a defence budget which, though large, is unhappily finite and limited. So we have to look very hard at the effectiveness and the costs of proposals for improvements, and this sometimes takes us a good deal longer than we would wish. Nevertheless, we are still working on it.

I have moved rather rapidly over one or two areas affecting conditions of service, and perhaps the House will forgive me—probably it will welcome it—if I do not detain it any longer at this juncture. I shall sit down now but will be prepared to do my best to answer any questions which noble Lords may have. I therefore beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd June, be approved.—(Lord Stratheona and Mount Royal.)

7.36 p.m.

Lord BROOKS of TREMORFA

My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Lord the Minister, in particular for reminding us that in recent times the placing of this order has given Members of your Lordships' House an opportunity to go into matters outside the order. I am certainly not intending to repeat the performance of, I think, 1978, when Members of your Lordships' House spoke on the order at very great length. Indeed, one noble Lord whose speech I read mentioned, I think, every weapon ever manufactured, with the possible exception of the bow and arrow and the Gatling gun.

There are just three points I wish to make on this order. One of them is certainly within the scope of the order, while the second is somewhat outside it, but I assure your Lordships that I shall be brief. Although it has been mentioned in another place and, I think, in your Lordships' House, the question of disciplinary procedures in our forces based in Northern Ireland bears repeating. They are acting under extreme stress in very exceptional circumstances, and even the strongest personalities can break under the stress of the conditions in Northern Ireland. A great measure of understanding is needed when disciplinary action is taken. I was very pleased to read that the Secretary of State has said in another place that he recognises these unique circumstances and that of course any disciplinary action taken against our servicemen under stress is tempered with mercy.

Turning to last Tuesday's Statement on the cruise missile bases, the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, said that an information folder was being prepared covering all aspects of the basing of cruise missiles in the United Kingdom. He said, and I quote him: I am notifying the local authorities concerned about the deployment, and their views on the environmental and social aspects of the arrival of the cruise missile units will be taken into account to the fullest possible extent. They will of course be consulted in due course on the detailed building plans".—[Official Report; 17/6/80; col. 989.] May I ask the noble Lord whether this information folder will contain information about all aspects of the basing of the cruise missiles? There is a great deal of disquiet over the answer which the Secretary of State gave in another place when he said: On the question of use, I confirm absolutely and have no hesitation in saying that the political decision requires a joint decision by the two Governments ".—[Official Report, Commons, 17/6/80; col. 1345.] That seems clear and definite enough, but it does not tell us whether there is a dual key system to be operated and whether, if the unthinkable should happen, it will be a British or an American finger on the trigger. I believe that the mass of the British public, while accepting the necessity for the basing of these missiles in Britain, would nevertheless want to know that in the last resort the use of these missiles is in the hands of the British Government.

The third and last point that I wish to make is that in our defence estimates debate the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, took the point that was made by a number of noble Lords that perhaps a more manageable format was needed for the estimates debate. We do try to do too much and, as the noble Lord said, it was like trying to squeeze a gallon into a pint pot. I hope that we can find a more suitable arrangement for the future.

With those few comments and apologies for stepping slightly out of order I am grateful to the noble Lord, the Minister, for introducing the order.

7.40 p.m.

Baroness VICKERS

My Lords, I am very pleased to be able to follow the noble Lord, Lord Brooks of Tremorfa. I think it is the first time that he has spoken in these debates and I hope that he will do so in future because he seems to have sympathetic ideas about the services.

I should like to raise two points, the first with regard to housing. In Command Paper 7826, it states on page 57 at paragraph 614: After pay, housing is probably the most important factor in the willingness of servicemen to make a career in the armed forces. Some 77 per cent. of officers are married and some 52 per cent. of servicemen". As the noble Lord mentioned, recruiting is up, and I should like to congratulate him on that. I think housing is most important so far as keeping the men in the services is concerned. The White Paper goes on to say that nevertheless home ownership is desirable but is difficult to reconcile with service life, especially in the Army and the Royal Air Force. However, I think that now so few in the services go overseas for any length of time people are more willing and anxious to have some accommodation in this country. Therefore I was rather astonished, because I had believed that there were surplus houses, to read in the report of the proceedings in another place on 17th June 1980 that the Minister had said, in answer to a Question: I do not believe that any Ministry of Defence houses, at the moment, are being kept empty and surplus to requirements".—[Official Report, Commons, 17/6/80; col. 1331.] I have asked several Questions, as the noble Lord will remember, both of him and of Sir Derek Rayner, and I was told that anything up to 21,000 houses were empty—some of them of course being surplus. The Minister went on to say: If any honourable Member knows of such houses, I hope that they will get in touch with me. If the houses are genuinely surplus to requirement, they will be passed to the Property Services Agency for disposal". I hope that will happen quickly because we know that there are many men who really want these houses. It is all the more necessary now because women have to stay in England more often than they used to because there is now no possibility of going to Singapore and other places which they used to go to. They need to have educational facilities for their children and also many wives like to have some work outside their home, either part-time or full-time or voluntary.

Also in paragraph 614 of the Command Paper it says: In addition we are planning to introduce a scheme which will enable service personnel to purchase surplus married quarters at a discount in line with the arrangements proposed under the new Housing Bill". I should like to know whether my noble friend has a scheme ready and whether he will allow me to table an amendment to the Housing Bill, which is coming to your Lordships' House next week.

The Command Paper goes on to say: The AFPRB will be re-examining the basis of married quarter charges this year to ensure that they are calculated in as fair a manner as possible, bearing in mind the standstill of recent years". Is that scheme going forward too? I think it is essential that we should have servicemen living in their own homes. I know some who are now living on Salisbury Plain, and there are many who are anxious to buy the houses in which they are living. Also quite a number of houses are let to civilians and I think it would be advantageous if these could be sold by the Property Services Agency.

Also, the WRNS have now come under court-martials for the first time. Can the noble Lord tell me whether any have been court-martialled, whether they have been penalised at all, and whether there have been any difficulties?

I should like to refer to what the noble Lord said about combat services because in paragraph 627 there is the most ambiguous sentence that I have read for a long time. It says: The Government believe that for the present there can be no question of members of the Women's Services engaging in combat or being armed for any duties"— and then it says— other than in exercises, emergency or war". That rather goes against what the noble Lord has just said. I am against women being armed in combat services, and I do not think this should be allowed to go by because it is not a good thing that it should be read by the general public. In paragraph 628 it is said: As a quite separate question, the Royal Navy is examining the scope for employing WRNS on operational duties, short of combat, to relieve manpower shortages and improve their career opportunities". I would support that and also I should like to mention that already civilian women from the dockyards go out on trials when the instruments on board ships are being tested, so I think it would he an excellent idea for women in the WRNS to have that opportunity.

I did mention other countries, and I gather that in Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France and the Netherlands women are now being trained in the use of firearms in self-defence. When the noble Lord mentioned the other point of not going into armed combat, did he think that we should train them just for self-defence? I should be grateful if the noble Lord can answer these points.

Lord NEWALL

My Lords, as usual my intervention will be very brief, and while thanking my noble friend for introducing this order and congratulating the Government once again on the pay and conditions that they are providing for Her Majesty's forces, I should like to make one point. That is on part of the conditions, being the equipment that our people have to use. In talking to some servicemen in the past they have told me that they feel like second-class soldiers when they go on NATO exercises, when comparing some of their equipment with the equipment of their neighbours from different countries. I would suggest that if we were able to streamline our defence sales structure, as I have mentioned to my noble friend in the past, and if we were able to sell more arms, as the French and the Italians and many other people are able to do, it would enable us to have more money available to improve other parts of the conditions which are so vital to our servicemen these days.

7.48 p.m.

Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN

My Lords, I must first apologise that I was not present when the noble Lord the Minister introduced this order. I do not think I should have intervened in this debate had I not attended this morning a memorial service for the late Sir Charles Goodeve, at which the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, made one of the most interesting and sympathetic addresses at the memorial service that I have heard. He related his address to the innovations and inventions that Sir Charles Goodeve had introduced to the Admiralty; how he had fought against the Admiralty hierarchy, as the noble Lord referred to it, in order to get inventions accepted which were so advantageous during the war for Admiralty purposes in dealing with the magnetic mine and the degaussing of ships that passed over those mines.

As the noble Lord the Minister is aware I have always been interested in a special form of property. The noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, eloquently referred to housing, which is a form of property, but the form of property in which I am interested is concerned with innovations and know-how and patents and trade marks and that kind of thing. A great deal of money is now being spent by the Government, quite rightly, for research and development in relation to the three services. I have traced the history of these orders, derived as they have been, from Acts going back to, I think, 1955. Since that date there has been a great change not only in the character of the persons who are subjected to these various Acts but in their training and the amount of money involved in relation to technical training. Therefore, I have wondered, as the noble Lord the Minister may remember, whether adequate attention is being paid to the spin-off for commercial purposes arising from the great investment made by the Government in research and development for the armed forces' Obviously questions of secrecy arise.

The noble Lord who has just spoken has referred to the nature of equipment. I agree with him that some aspects of the equipment of our forces are not the equivalent of that of other forces, even in NATO. But there are aspects of the equipment which the Government have devised which are superior even to that of the Americans, but for reasons that I am not aware of it is not possible for the British authorities to get this kind of equipment into use in the same way as the Americans have done.

I am not asking the Minister to reply at this stage, but I do ask that he should carefully consider how far his department is failing in exploiting the results of the investment of public money in research and development in two fields: first, perhaps a secret field, in relation to the NATO infrastructure, where we are trying to get our inventions used by other armed forces, around which there is an element of secrecy. And the second is the spin-off from that research and development for commercial purposes. The Americans, I know, as many noble Lords will be aware, have spent vast sums in research and development in military fields, and there has been a tremendous spin-off for commercial advantage from that investment. My point really is whether or not the British Government have adequately—I nearly said constructed—set up arrangements to ensure that a great deal of this research and development can be used commercially, subject, of course, to the usual secrecy arrangements.

Lord LEONARD

My Lords, I shall be extremely brief in approaching this order, which I realise is a necessity. Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, I should like to make just one or two points. The noble Lord the Minister has stated that, while the sums of money available for defence are large, they are very heavily committed. My noble friend Lord Brooks of Tremorfa has brought up the matter of Northern Ireland and the disciplines that prevail among the forces in Northern Ireland. I do not for a moment think that he was implying that discipline should be in any way lowered if through emotional stress some members of our forces commit offences that would be punished very severely here in Britain. I will await the Minister's views on that.

The point I want to make is about finances. In the past 10 years we have spent £4,000 million in Northern Ireland propping up something that could possibly cease to exist if the present Government were willing to listen to the pleas of the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic. It is about time we ceased spending these vast sums of money—and they are, I think the Minister will agree, vast sums. I know I am ranging far from the subject of this order, but then other people have ranged reasonably far also. Therefore, I am making no apology for ranging far, but I am stating my case.

I should like the Minister to consider the savings which are available, provided there is the will on the part of Her Majesty's Government, and the will on the part of the people of Northern Ireland and of Southern Ireland, to come together. I can assure this House that another £4,000 million will be spent if this matter is not settled, and settled soon. I will not labour this question any further, but I just wish to make the point that money is available, and I can assure your Lordships that it would be much better spent if it was used to combat the insidious forces of Communism in the world rather than to prop up an unstable state. I sincerely hope that the Minister will bear this in mind when he is compiling the future defence budget.

7.56 p.m.

Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL

My Lords, I will not follow the noble Lord, Lord Leonard, if he will forgive me, into the politics of Northern Ireland. I am wholly in sympathy with him in saying that this appears to be nugatory expenditure on a large scale, and we regret it, and there are many better things we could use it for. Of course, we have said many times that the activities that are demanded of the services in Northern Ireland do represent a very severe drain and put the services under great stress. While I speak for the Government, I speak particularly for the Ministry of Defence, and I do assure the noble Lord that, while I try and look sometimes for small benefits that the Ministry of Defence can derive from their activities in Northern Ireland, we would wholeheartedly go along with him in wishing that the conflict could soon be brought to an end, for all sorts of reasons.

Perhaps this is the logical moment to refer briefly to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooks. I think we can be very proud of the discipline of the forces in Northern Ireland. They often show incredible restraint under very severe provocation. Happily, there is less of the kind of provocation in recent years than there used to be a few years ago. Some of the living conditions of our servicemen in Northern Ireland are far from ideal. They create a great deal of stress. They have to endure much provocation. They do it very well. On the other hand, given the political circumstances of Northern Ireland, there are times when severe disciplinary action is expected of the administrators of the forces against those who transgress what are very strict codes. Of course, they are viewed internally, I can assure the noble Lord, with the greatest possible sympathy; but we do demand a great deal from the forces, and on the whole I think we can be proud that we get it.

May I turn very briefly to the question on equipment that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Newall, and by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. To the noble Lord, Lord Newall, may I say this. I am the last person to say I am happy about some of the equipment that is used by some of our forces. That would sound smug. It is an unfortunate fact that one tends to hear more, as is always the case in circumstances of this kind, of inadequate equipment than one hears of superlative equipment. There is inadequate equipment. I would not dispute that for a moment. I have said previously that it is a regrettable fact that some of the lorries driven by the Army are older than the people who drive them, and that is particularly so in Germany. That is not a happy situation. But it is also true that we have some extremely good equipment, and that brings me to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran.

We have some excellent equipment, and equipment which we sell to other services which are very glad to have it. I wish that I had brought with me the book on the life of Isambard Brunel, one of the great inventors of this country, who, to put it mildly, was no lover of the Admiralty. There is a famous letter in which he records his view of the Admiralty which is almost unrepeatable in this House. I do not believe that that view is widely held nowadays, although I have no doubt that there are some who do hold it.

We do our best to exploit for commercial purposes inventions which are made during the course of service research and development. I think that I have said previously that it is not a widely known fact—but I believe I am right in saying it—that the manufacturers of all the green digital watches which are sold in the world pay a small royalty to the radar research establishment at Malvern—they pay that royalty even if they are made in Japan. That is an example of the kind of R and D, and the exploitation of it, that takes place. It is not perfect. I recently chaired a meeting of the Defence Industries Council where we discussed whether the interface between industry and the research and development establishments was all that it might be. I could make a speech lasting quite a long time on that subject alone, but I must try to resist the temptation.

I point out to my noble friend Lord Newall that we have a sales organisation which we believe is effective. It sometimes works under a good deal of difficulty. There are many political constraints and I should be very surprised if, during the course of the next few months, I get away scot-free with some noble Lords whom I could mention who are passionately opposed to the concept of selling arms at all—they believe that it is an indecent business. There is an Army equipment exhibition about to take place, and certain organisations have been running a campaign against it. I happen to have been the recipient of some of the barbs that they have been throwing. I am totally unrepentent. We are in the business of selling expertise abroad and we do it quite well. We are proud of it and we intend to continue to do it. That is all that I can say on that subject.

I turn to one other extraneous subject. The noble Lord asked me about ground-launched cruise missiles. All that I should like to say on that subject is that the informaton folder will address all the questions which we believe people will be asking. If there are questions which are not answered in that information folder then we shall do our best to answer them as they arise.

I shall now get back to what we really ought to be talking about. The noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, asked me a number of questions as regards which I shall have to write to her with details. However, I can answer one or two of the matters which she raised. I found the quotation that she made about houses a curious one. What I can say to her is that we certainly do not have a policy of keeping married quarters empty. Indeed, even that comment has to be slightly qualified. Anybody operating a housing organisation must have a certain number of houses which are kept empty and then rotated. However, we do not have a policy of keeping houses empty. Far from it. We have a great many empty married quarters and we are doing our best to sell off those that are saleable, and that is taking place as fast as possible. But it is quite a difficult and complicated matter, to which I have referred on a number of occasions.

The Housing Bill will be covering only local authority housing, so I do not think it will be appropriate for the noble Baroness to put down an amendment. But we are investigating the possibility of creating some arrangements analogous to the arrangements whereby council house tenants can buy their houses. I think—and I am anticipating this—that it is not entirely likely that servicemen will be able to buy the house which they are actually occupying because they tend to rotate fairly quickly. However, we are certinly looking to see what we can do in that connection.

I am not sure that it is true to say that so few service families go overseas nowadays. If we include Northern Ireland and Germany in that connection it would be true to say that quite a lot of families go overseas and the problem of what is termed "turbulence" is quite a serious one. We recognise the housing problems of the services.

The noble Baroness asked me some questions about what we were referring to the armed forces pay review body. I think that I had better write to her about the details. We are certainly referring to them some of the charges raised for quartering.

I think that I have covered most of the questions that I was asked, with the exception of the House of Lords procedural point which the noble Lord, Lord Brooks of Tremorfa, raised. I see that we have the Assistant Chief Whip with us. I think that the proper answer is to say that I would support him in trying to split up the defence debate into more manageable chunks. I think that the formal answer I ought to give is that I shall refer the matter to the appropriate channels and do what I can to support it. I shall be writing on one or two points, particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, but with that may I once again say that I beg to move.

On Question, Motion agreed to.