APPOINTMENT OF DIRECTOR GENERAL RESERVE FORCES AND CADETS

HC Deb 20 May 1996 vol 278 cc20-38

'.—(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint a senior reservist officer, to hold a rank not less than Major General, or RN/RAF equivalent, who shall have served for not less than ten years in the volunteer reserves and who shall be known as the "Director General Reserve Forces and Cadets".

(2) The purpose of this post shall be to provide Ministers and the Chiefs of Staff with advice on policy matters relating to the reserve forces and cadets and to co-ordinate with other agencies and bodies to promote the health and well-being of the reserve forces.

(3) The principal roles of the Director General Reserve Forces and Cadets shall be—

1. (a) to support the Ministry of Defence in policy advice on mobilisation strategy as it impacts on the civilian community and on the terms and conditions of reservists;
2. (b) to provide input on all aspects of Ministry of Defence policy which affect the reserve forces, including training organisation and deployment, drawing on expertise from the civilian community;
3. (c) to liaise with the Department for Health, in conjunction with the senior reservist medical officers, on matters relating to civilian employment of reservist medical personnel;
4. (d) to liaise with the Department of Transport and the aviation industry, in collaboration with senior reservist aviation officers from all three services, on matters relating to aviation and reserve force service;
5. (e) in collaboration with the National Employers' Liaison Committee to seek to ensure that arrangements for reservist service are made as attractive as possible for civilian employers; this should include designing reporting systems on serving individuals, where they wish, for the benefit of their employers;
6. (f) to work with university military education committees and officer training corps both to promote officer recruiting into the reserve forces and to ensure that the structure of officer training is attractive to universities and receives academic recognition where possible;
7. (g) to liaise with schools and youth organisations on ways of promoting and enhancing the roles of cadet forces; to take a particular interest in the recruiting of officers and senior non-commissioned officers for the cadet forces;
8. (h) to work with the council of Territorial and Volunteer Reserve Associations on all aspects of recruiting and manning;
9. (i) to liaise closely with the single service Inspector Generals; and
10. (j) to liaise closely with the reserve forces of other English speaking and other European countries to examine initiatives abroad to improve recruiting and retention, with particular emphasis on initiatives in the civilian community affecting employers, reservist families and the wider civilian environment.

(4) The Director General shall be provided with a regular Brigadier or RN/RAF equivalent (in the first place the present Director Reserves and Cadets) to act as his chief of staff and to assist him in his duties.'.—[Mr. Brazier.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.30 pm

Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I regret that my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) is ill in Scotland and cannot be here to speak.

I have supported the Bill all the way and I have been impressed by the way in which my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, who I am glad to see on the Front Bench, has handled it. Essentially, the Bill sets up a welcome legal framework for the use of reserves. The new clause goes to the heart of wider issues which many of us feel cause the reserve forces serious difficulties, and it reflects the frustration that is felt by many middle-ranking reserve officers over the current arrangements for reserve forces.

By establishing a reservist as the director general of reserves and cadets, the new clause seeks to establish a framework for policy on the management of the reserve forces and the cadet forces which does not in any way interfere with the command structure.

The Select Committee on Defence has presented an excellent report which outlines in some detail some of the sad difficulties to which I have alluded about the reserve forces. The new clause is extremely relevant to those difficulties. I shall mention a historic one before looking forward to illustrate exactly why we need reservist advice in the centre. The Select Committee on Defence asked why a battalion was down-roled from the best-recruited infantry regiment in the Territorial Army when many units which were poorly recruited and which in one or two cases were almost completely ineffective were being kept. The answer from the Regular officer concerned was that the change was required to achieve symmetry with the regimental pattern in the Regular Army, whatever that piece of gobbledegook means. If there had been proper reservist advice from the centre I do not think that that mistake would have been made. The Select Committee report points to the poverty of officer training in our reserve forces, especially in relation to that in the new world countries of Canada, America and Australia.

The most important quote in the report states: Assuming that suitable candidates can be identified, we recommend that the Government should give serious consideration to appointing a Reservist as the next Director General of Reserves. It was with disbelief that I heard that, far from appointing a reservist, it is intended to abolish the post altogether.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)

My hon. Friend speaks about the excellent training in Canada for reserve forces. I confirm that. My son was in their reserves for many years and they were eligible for the Gulf war. They are exceedingly well-trained throughout Canada.

Mr. Brazier

My hon. Friend is right. On my last visit to Canada, I found exactly the same. The fact that the Canadian director general of reserves is an academic explains why Canada has built a close link with schools and universities in Canada, a link that is conspicuously missing here.

Exactly the same problems exist in all parts of the English-speaking world. We find long faces among many reservists in all the countries that I have mentioned.

Fragmentation of working patterns makes it much harder to reach employers. There is also the breakdown of the family and of the community, and the decline in the volunteer ethos. The fundamental difference, however, between Britain and America, Canada and Australia is that all those other countries, with reservist advice in the centre, have been much more successful at devising programmes—many of them entirely cost-free programmes—to tackle those problems, instead of just complaining about them. Those programmes are illustrated on the amendment paper.

The director general's duties, which I have outlined in the amendment paper, are based on those of the current Canadian director general of reserves, with ideas also from Australia, America, the Select Committee and territorials here.

Mr. Keith Mans (Wyre)

Does my hon. Friend agree that not just people abroad, but many people here—myself included as a reservist—feel that much can be done as a result of this initiative? Many people in this country would like to give information to help to ensure that the voice of the reserves is properly represented at the centre.

Mr. Brazier

I am most grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. He is the only serving reservist in the House. As such, he is someone whom we should—[Interruption.] I apologise. I understand that we have a second. I look forward to hearing the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) as well. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) serves twice a month with the Royal Air Force reserves.

I shall mention just a few of my suggestions for the duties that such a director general could have. He could give advice on mobilisation issues. It is fine to have machinery in place and I approve of the machinery in the Bill, but anyone who has been involved in mobilisation— not just here, but in Canada and America, where they have done much more of it in the past few years—will say that it is vital to tackle a million tiny details when people are pulled out of a civilian working environment. Reservist advice in the centre is essential in that.

It is important to liaise with the Department for Health. We have an excellent Secretary of State for Health who is an ex-reservist. His deputy is married to a member of the medical reserves. It is a great shame that no delegation has gone to see them to discuss the problems in civilian life which serving reservists sometimes suffer in relation to trust hospitals.

We could do so much more with the aviation industry. Two thirds of America's tactical strategic airlift is run by reservists. We need an initiative led not by the RAF, for which I have the greatest respect, but by a prominent civilian figure from the aviation industry, backed by reservists, to persuade the industry that much more could be done to build a proper air reserve in this country, thus releasing funds for equipment: reservist manpower costs are so much lower.

I mention also the importance of the relationship with employers and with the National Employers Liaison Committee. We built that in successful imitation of the model abroad, but Canada and Australia—and the Canadians have kindly just sent me an example—have a package of standard letters for units on how an individual unit can build a relationship with employers.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) referred to her son's experience in Canada. The university regiments in Canada and Australia are fundamental to officer recruiting. One enterprising commanding officer told me last year that he had written to every officer training corps in the country to ask them if any of their output of cadets were coming to his regimental area. I am glad that we are at last introducing a system of automatic notification. Yet such a system has existed in all these other countries for many years—in one case, since before the war.

We need reservist policy advice at the centre. The reserve forces are full of people who know what needs doing; we cannot expect the Regular Army to advise on the same policy matters.

Last but by no means least on my list is the important relationship with cadet forces. General Colin Powell, in his marvellous testimony to his experience in the American armed forces, has described the vital change in his life made by one enthusiastic cadet instructor. To make the cadet forces really work well and to give them an exciting future, as the national service generation that used to provide so many instructors disappears, we need people with a foothold in civilian life. We need people who can reach out to the teaching profession and to many other organisations; it is from their ranks that these instructors must come. A reservist is responsible for this activity in Canada and Australia.

I know that the Minister will have been given a great many arguments by the Regular forces, especially the Regular Army, as to why all this is nonsense and why reservists should not fill senior positions. At this point it may be relevant to mention a submission that General Fay made to the Australian inquiry into the reserve forces. It was a successful submission, in that most of his ideas were adopted. He accepted all the difficulties involved in putting reservists in senior positions in a complicated modern military world, but his final comment was: Failure to provide for senior … reserve officer career progression would result in an inability to attract high calibre personnel into the officer ranks. The impact of such a failure in any organisation is self-evident. Our Select Committee concluded that that was one of the key reasons for the weaknesses in our reserve forces officer corps.

Although we have a minority of excellent units, I find it deeply worrying that we have the worst turnover rate in the English-speaking world. The Army Personnel Research Establishment research into the attitudes of territorials leaving the forces lists boring training and poor officer leadership as important factors, according to the Select Committee's report.

The Australian paper that I have already mentioned ended with a remarkable quotation from Field Marshal Sir Thomas Blarney, uttered in 1932. He was the only Australian ever to reach the rank of Field Marshal and was himself originally a reservist. He said: If the enthusiasm and sacrifice of time and study of this group of keen officers … is allowed to die out, neither money nor the volunteering of large numbers of gallant but untrained men will enable an effective Army to suddenly be created in a crisis. During the last war the Australians had no Regular framework in the sense that we had one. The British Regular Army and Regular armed forces are second to none, and have been second to none throughout this century, but when it comes to citizen forces—despite a number of exceptionally gallant reserve units—we can learn much from our brethren in the new world and the Antipodes.

The Australians listened to Field Marshal Blarney. Rommel testified that the finest troops sent against the Germans in the desert campaign were Australians and New Zealanders. The cat was let out of the bag when Monty's chief of staff, General Freddy de Guingard, commented in 1944, during the attempt to break out after D-day: "The old man is absolutely furious. He's cursing the fact that we don't have the Australian ninth division here to lead the way out."

As my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre said earlier, these views are not confined to Australia, Canada and America. I should like to quote one voice from Britain, Colonel Tony Sellon. He asked me to stress that he was speaking in a personal capacity, not as chairman of the Greater London Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve. Still, he is the man who, as we all know, led the campaign to save the TA in the last round of defence cuts when others should have been doing that job. He is the man who organised the dinner at London Scottish which 70 of us attended and where this message came across strongly. Recently, he also organised the letter-writing campaign about the Royal Marine reserves. He said: My personal view is that it is extraordinary that a service organisation comprised of over 60,000 members, which is approximately one third of the Army's total strength, some of whom hold responsible positions in industry, commerce and in academia, is effectively precluded from filling its own top slot … In the same way that policy matters in the Board Room can often best be addressed by the non-executive Directors, so too is the right part-timer best placed to advise on policy matters relating to the Reserve Forces. It works well in other countries and in business and commerce; so too would it work here. The opportunities from the use of our reserve forces are limitless. In America, more than half of all manpower, excluding regular reservists, is provided by reservists. If they are used regularly—90,000 of them went to the Gulf—so much more money can be spent on equipment because reservists are so much cheaper. Here, less than a fifth of our manpower comprises reservists. If the purpose behind the Bill is to become a reality, and we are to go beyond a few hundred people deployed to Bosnia and achieve the standards that we want in reservists, we must cut the crippling wastage and find out why such wastage is so much lower in all the countries that I have mentioned.

I end by looking back two centuries to 1757, when a certain ambitious, extremely able and gallant militia colonel approached the War Office to ask whether he could be transferred from the militia to the regular forces since he could not rise beyond the rank of colonel in the militia. Had the War Office of the day had an enlightened Minister like my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, and not told him that, in spite of his gallant role under Wolfe it had no more use for him, the young Colonel Washington might have taken a different view of this country and history might have taken a different course.

We have 60,000 British reservists. They deserve a better voice in government than a single brigadier in Wilton. It is time that, like our English-speaking counterparts, we had a reservist general to advise Ministers and chiefs of staff in the Ministry of Defence.

3.45 pm

Mr. Mans

I very much support the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). I genuinely feel that the reserve and Regular forces are moving into a new era, in which reservists will be more important to the defence of this country. That needs to be recognised in a way that will enhance the reserve forces, encourage recruitment and ensure that they can play a more worthwhile part in Britain's defence.

I strongly believe that the new clause in no way threatens the way in which the Regular forces operate. It is absolutely right that we must ensure that our armed forces speak with one voice. The new clause will not affect the Regular armed forces—notably the chief of the general staff—being able to speak for everybody, reservists and Regulars. Without the enhancement of the status of reservists, we will find it difficult to continue to recruit the calibre of men and women that we need.

We will also find it difficult to ensure that the particular needs and problems that reservists have in filling two roles will be appreciated at the top. Above all, whatever the outcome of this debate, it is important that the voice of reservists is heard fully and at the top of Whitehall. If we can achieve that, regardless of whether the new clause is accepted, the debate will have been worth while.

Mr. Patrick Thompson (Norwich, North)

I am grateful for the chance to speak briefly in support of the new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), and to support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans). I am enthusiastic about the clause for the reason that has just been given—it will help to enhance the work of our reserves and our cadets. I speak with experience, as someone who spent a total of 24 years either with the reserves or with the cadets.

It must be right to spend more time debating this subject. After all, we are talking about young people and people who want to serve their country—a positive achievement. We spend far too much time in the House talking about complex regulations that are not understood by people outside. In this case, however, we are talking about the way in which people can volunteer to serve this country with the reserves or the cadets. We are also talking about people who give up their time to volunteer to be officers in the reserves and leaders of the cadets. This is not a party-political matter, but it is a pity that we do not spend more time talking about such people and their achievements. This country would be far better if we saw more in the newspapers and elsewhere about the achievements of our reserves.

I want to make two other remarks before I sit down. First, the new clause states that the senior reservist who is to become the director general of reserve forces and cadets will liaise with schools and youth organisations on ways of promoting and enhancing the roles of cadet forces and will take a particular interest in recruiting. I very strongly support that.

My last remark is that it is not just a matter of any military benefit that may come from the reserves or from the cadets—the benefit goes much wider than that. That is why the appointment of the director general is so important. The morale of our country is bound up with cadet force and reserve activity. I see in my constituency how much good is being done by young people through cadet activities. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State is listening, and he will agree that this is not just a military matter. It does not matter what the top brass say, as they may be interested only in the military benefits. This is a national issue. We want more young people involved, not fewer. For all those reasons—and for many others that the House will not thank me for speaking on at length—I am delighted to support the new clause.

Mr. Bill Walker (North Tayside)

I am delighted to offer my support for the new clause, and that will come as no surprise to my colleagues on the Front Bench. I believe that we must understand the difficulties of being an auxiliary or a reservist. One faces problems at work and difficulties with one's family when one is required to enter into and accept commitments that impinge on family activities and family life. It is because of that that the House must debate fully and adequately the importance of leadership.

I have no complaints about the quality of the senior air staff officers who have held the post of the officer commanding the Air Cadets. We have been fortunate, as we have had some superb people in these posts. In addition, the director general of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force is a Member of the House—my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who has active experience and has served in the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. It is the combination of those things and experiences that brings together the people who provide leadership and, more importantly, the understanding of what it means to an individual to be a member of the Territorials, the reserves or the auxiliary forces. That is why we must consider carefully what the Bill does.

My hon. Friend the Minister knows of my concerns about discrimination, which we debated at some length in Committee. He will therefore understand that paragraphs (3)(a) to (e) of new clause 1 are important because they address some of those concerns. I accept that they will not put into statute exactly what I was trying to achieve in Committee, but they at least begin to address my anxieties. I hope that he will carefully consider new clause 1 and respond in a manner that will convince the House and the country that the Government understand that unless we have the right people in the key posts, it is possible that we will not have the number of reservists and auxiliaries that we need to augment our substantially reduced Regular military capability.

Many Conservative Members feel that we are cutting things rather fine with our current forces numbers. We welcome the improvement in equipment and believe that our Regular forces are best equipped if their numbers are smaller. However, the Regulars will be effective during hostilities only if they can call on the necessary number of reserves to augment them, or back them up in key posts, when they are sent off to a conflict. It was especially important that we addressed the problems facing the medical profession in Committee. New clause 1 deals with that.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) said, this debate is important because it affects the whole country. It is important for the reserve forces but also for the cadet forces. There has been some concern in the air cadets about proposed changes in the command structures and to the position of the air officer commanding. I believe that the top man, whatever the field, should be a hands-on man with whom reservists can have regular contact and exchange ideas and whom they can approach easily. That is not in any way to diminish the necessary military environment, which is essential. When we are dealing with volunteers, it is important that they can see that such two-way communication is working. Before we change the structures, especially command structures, it is important to take that aspect into consideration.

Another vital aspect is often overlooked. While the Ministry of Defence, and therefore the public purse, picks up the bulk of the costs of our cadet forces, the cadets, by virtue of the way in which they operate, are required to raise substantial sums in their own right. That is why they are registered as charities. We should not in any way put at risk that charitable status because it is the mechanism through which the bulk of their extra funding comes.

We had a good and constructive debate in Committee and I believe that members of the auxiliaries and the reserves feel that the Committee and the House cares. I make that as a cross-party point, not a partisan one.

If we get the structure and the leadership right, we shall have served the country well. If we do not get it right in the current Bill, it will be a long time before we consider another one. Experience as a reservist has taught me that if one does not take the opportunity to make changes, it can often take nearly a lifetime to bring them about later, as it did in my case. Therefore, we need to get it right this time. I am confident that my hon. Friend the Minister understands that and I hope that when he replies to the debate he will have something positive to say about the new clause.

4 pm

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood)

Having made one's maiden speech on the subject, it is gratifying to find the ethos and motivation of that speech coming to fruition some 26 years later in that we are establishing a legislative framework which will enable Britain fully to utilise the potential of the reserve forces of all three services.

My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) has done the House a great service by tabling new clause 1, which is the summation of all we have been seeking to achieve. My hon. Friend is infinitely more experienced than I am in these matters and he holds the Territorial decoration for his gallant service in the reserve forces over many years. Moreover, in this place he can be described as TD—or truly dedicated. He has consistently advocated better use of the reserve forces; he has travelled overseas to conduct research; he has written extensively; he has been active in Committee and on the Floor of the House; and now he has introduced a new clause that not only has merit in itself, but sets out the good grounds for its acceptance by the Government and the House.

We know that the Bill will not be the last word on the reserve forces—I hope it is not—but the appointment of a two-star officer from the reserve forces as director general in the Ministry of Defence, will mean that there will be in post at the heart of the policy-making machinery on the nation's defence, someone with the experience and the status to make a significant contribution and continue the modernisation process of the reserves which will have been set in train by the Bill.

I particularly welcome the exceptionally ecumenical nature of my hon. Friend's new clause. It is a genuinely tri-service measure. Like many Conservatives, my hon. Friend holds the Territorial Army particularly dear, but we know that reserves of all three forces are required and that the greatest deficiencies are in the naval and air reserves rather than in the Territorial Army as in recent years, the Army has been more imaginative than the Navy and the Air Force in its use of reserves.

I shall just re-emphasise a few of the points that my hon. Friends have already made. The first relates to status. When dealing with the Ministry of Defence, one cannot over-emphasise the importance of status—it is jealously guarded and earnestly sought. Once obtained, it has to be earned. The gallant gentleman, the two-star officer who will hold the post will be doubly qualified—he will have authority of all three services within the military community and within the civilian community. This dual role is crucial and will enable him to carry weight in a sense that no Regular officer could ever do, particularly among the civilian community, with which the reservists have to deal and from which they are drawn.

The officer must carry authority with the Territorial and Volunteer Reserve Associations. There is a risk that the TAVRAs might be a little jealous and think that a two-star officer would intrude on their territory. However, the new clause makes it clear that he would work with the TAVRAs regarding all aspects of recruiting and manning. Therefore, they should not be rigorous custodians of their terrain but instead use their imagination and welcome the appointment.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) referred to the medical services. Those services are becoming more reliant on reservists in all three armed forces. I have received a letter from the British Medical Association welcoming the new clause and expressing the hope that it will be carried into law.

Many of my constituents in Ruislip-Northwood are involved in air transport activities. RAF Northolt is a dual-use station which is also used by civilian aircraft and Heathrow is the biggest single employer in my area. At times of emergency or war, our armed forces may have to requisition civilian aircraft for military purposes and that somewhat sensitive and difficult role must be executed diplomatically. It can only be helpful to have in post someone with experience in commerce—and preferably with an air transport background—when dealing with the Department of Transport and the aviation industry, as my hon. Friend pointed out. The point applies also to the National Employers Liaison Committee.

The reservist two-star officer would have a proselytising role. He would have to support the university air squadrons, the university sea cadet corps and the university officers training corps in their attempts to ensure that graduates do not simply enter the Regular forces upon completion of their service. He must make it clear that they can play an equally valid role in the reserves. The number of schools liaison officers at the Ministry of Defence has been rigorously cut—like so much else—and their role could be reinforced by the reservist two-star officer.

The officer would also have an overseas representational role. If the director is merely a seconded Regular officer of one-star rank, it creates the impression that Her Majesty's Government do not give the emphasis to our reservists that is accorded to those in other countries where the reserve forces are used more effectively. The United States is a prime example, but I could also cite Switzerland, Israel and others. We have much to learn from those countries about the cost-effective potential of the reserve forces. The Ministry of Defence would do well to have on hand the expertise of a highly qualified, experienced two-star reservist officer who would represent the reserves overseas.

I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury has recognised that Regular officer back-up is essential. It is important to have on hand a one-star officer, such as a brigadier, air commodore or commodore, who would ensure that the Regular forces aspects of the reservist commitment are understood and that reservists are not out of line with thinking in the Regular forces.

In conclusion, I reiterate the warmth of my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury. I note that the co-signatories to his new clause have all worn uniform and have all been members of Her Majesty's Regular forces. From the perspective of their Regular service, they understand the merits of having a reservist two-star officer as director general in the Ministry of Defence.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, who has worn uniform as a Regular, will join us in supporting the new clause.

Dr. John Reid (Motherwell, North)

I very much agree with the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), who pointed out the importance of this issue, and expressed the wish that we could spend more time discussing such issues, with more hon. Members present, and see them reported more widely. Nevertheless, I must say, as I gaze at the empty spaces in the heavens above us, that, no matter how often we discuss defence and no matter how important the subject, it appears that those who report our debates to the nation have their own priorities and their own agenda when it comes to the military—and unfortunately, matters of great importance go largely unreported.

On the substance of new clause 1, it will not surprise Conservative Members who spoke in its favour to know that I and my colleagues have considerable sympathy with what they said. Several times in the past few years, I have spoken about the importance of the Territorial Army in particular and reserves in general, which I believe extends far beyond their pure military importance, crucial though that is. There is an increasing gap between civilian society and military society because of the lack of conscription, and the reduced numbers, with every passing year, of those who have served in the armed forces. That gap can be bridged largely, although not exclusively, by the membership of the reserve forces and the cadets.

The argument, although laid out in detail in the new clause, may be made briefly. Hon. Members who argue for the new clause say two things. First, they say that the director general of the reserve forces should be a member of the reserve forces himself or herself. Secondly, they say that the status of the post should be improved, to generate not only internally but externally—among members of the Regular Army, politicians and the public—an understanding that the post is viewed with importance by those who must take decisions.

Hon. Members have made a good case for that, for three reasons. First, there is a feeling—justified or not— which I perceive as I speak to members of the reserve forces, that they may sometimes be treated as second-class citizens by the Regular armed forces. Whether that is the result of lack of understanding or of the natural self-interest of members of the Regular forces, I do not know, but there is a good case, at a time when we are discussing and backing a "one army" or "one armed force" concept, for doing everything possible to overcome that perception by telling members of our reserve forces, "Yes, we do regard you as equal partners in this one army, this one armed force. To signify that, we shall make the small but significant change of saying that the leadership of this part of the united armed forces will be drawn from the reserves."

The second argument was made by every hon. Member who spoke—that we must have at the centre of our policy making, our strategic tactical thinking about doctrine and practical problems like mobilisation, someone who has experience, not only of the positive attributes of our reserve forces, but of the problems that confront a member of the reserve force that do not confront Regulars.

Family problems, which were mentioned, always exist in the Regulars, but are especially acute in the reserves. There are employment problems, which obviously apply only to reserves, and may apply even more now that we are creating new categories of reserves. There are also general logistical problems. No matter how bright and committed the regular soldier, service man or woman who is appointed director general, with the best will in the world they will not have personal experience.

My third reason can be put more simply. The Defence Select Committee—people who are well versed, well exercised and obviously deeply knowledgeable on the subject, as was demonstrated by their report on reserve forces and the Territorial Army—feels that this subject is worthy of consideration. If I were Minister, that would be enough to make me think.

In addition to the Committee's report, I refer to the list of names at the top of the new clause—I am not being patronising—which includes the hon. Members for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes), for North Tayside (Mr. Walker), for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), et cetera. When hon. Members who take such an interest in this subject feel compelled to table a new clause, it has to be given the utmost consideration.

4.15 pm

I have one reservation: it is neither my style nor my inclination to impose a detailed structural amendment on the armed forces when they appear to be not entirely happy with it. However, I understand that, on this occasion, there may be less ground for such reluctance, because most of the people who have been involved in this are regular members of the armed forces. There has also been wide consultation on this document. However, we should not get to this stage and not give the Minister one more chance to consult people. That would be pushing it a little too precipitately, as there will be other occasions on which the Bill will be discussed in the House.

Obviously, I am an Opposition Member and I do not have access to consultations of this nature—yet. My colleagues and I will listen attentively to what the Minister says tonight. I urge him to take full consideration of the arguments that have been put by his hon. Friends and by the Defence Select Committee, and of the views that are widely held by members of the reserve forces. We value the reserve forces, and we are saying to them that they are part of a "one armed force" concept. This small step would be symbolic, and would show that we are prepared to say that and to do it in practice.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames)

I pay a warm tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) who, over the years, has campaigned assiduously on behalf of the volunteer reserves. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) said, hardly a day goes by without a new pamphlet about the reserve forces emerging from my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury.

My hon. Friend has a tremendous energy and an endless stream of ideas about how to make the best use of part of the armed forces of which he is enormously proud and to which he has devoted a great deal of time. He is full to overflowing with ideas for these energetic, well-qualified and well-informed young men and women, all of whom have a greater role to play than perhaps they are able to play now—and everything that we would like to do in future recognises that fact. The legislation seeks to make greater use of our reserve forces.

My hon. Friend is well known as a former serving officer in the Territorial Army. His opinions and advice have always been of great value to us. I pay tribute to him for his unstinting support for the Bill. He was one of the first hon. Members to tell me of his personal and wholehearted support for the legislation. I thank him for the hard work he does in the interests of the reserves.

As I said, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury that the Territorial Army has an extraordinary abundance of people with the enthusiasm and desire to serve their country. I hope that he will feel that that is precisely what we are trying to facilitate within the overall spirit of the legislation.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford)

Will the Minister consider one small point during the Bill's passage through the House? Although TA regulations currently make it clear that the commanding officer of a TA unit should be from the reserves, only four units have such commanding officers, whereas the rest are commanded by Regulars. I think that there is a real problem about the type of message we are sending to those who aspire to run such units and to have an alternative career structure. Will the Minister consider that matter?

Mr. Soames

I will consider it. If my hon. Friend will let me develop my argument, perhaps he and I could discuss that matter in the light of some figures that I plan to lay before the House later in the debate.

I agree entirely with the spirit behind the new clause, and I acknowledge—again, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood said—that it is supported by a number of my hon. Friends, all of whom have served in the armed forces, and by the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid).

I acknowledge that, in moving the new clause, my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury is seeking to help to improve the arrangements for advice on reserve matters to Ministers and to the Chiefs of Staff. I hope that he will not think that I am being patronising if I say that I know that his heart is entirely in the right place, and I have every sympathy with his sentiments. I share his anxieties that such advice should be given well and effectively, and that it is currently not as well or as effectively given as it should be.

It may be of interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury and to other hon. Members if I were to outline how matters are, I believe, already improving. I hope that this will be of some comfort to my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith).

First, 35 major units out of 107 of the Territorial Army are commanded by TA officers. They hold the rank of lieutenant-colonel or, in certain cases, of colonel. As well as being a significant achievement in its own right, that ensures that advice to the chain of command is given in the normal way, from officers with a reservist perspective. I wholly agree with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury about the cadet forces.

Mr. Brazier

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his generous words, but I honestly wonder what he meant by what he said. Is he saying that it is a significant achievement that less than one third of our TA units are commanded by reservists, whereas the TA regulations say that a reservist should always command such units unless there is no suitable candidate? Only four units out of 31 in the infantry are commanded by a reservist, while the comparative figures for Canada, America and Australia are more than 90 per cent.

Mr. Soames

I shall come to comparisons with Canada and America later in the debate. I believe that our achievement is remarkable. I am not saying that we cannot do better, but, in itself, that is a remarkable achievement.

As I said, I wholly agree with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury about the cadet forces. There are, additionally, no fewer than 39 TA officers currently serving at colonel level in staff appointments. That provides a further source of influence and advice at senior level from a reserve perspective.

The strength of the TA, however—as the hon. Member for Motherwell, North quite rightly said—lies in it being part of the British Army. We have one Army, not two, and it is therefore right and proper that Ministers receive advice on TA matters through one Army chain of command. As my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury knows, however, Ministers seek direct advice from the brigadier TA at land whenever it is appropriate. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) will agree that that is just the sort of advice that Ministers need.

I take great pleasure in being able to respond to this debate, which is the denouement of 26 years of loyal and hard service by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood, who made his maiden speech on this subject. It must be very satisfying for him, after 26 years in the House, to see all this brought to fruition. I have been in the House for half that length of time and have been nowhere near any such achievement. He should be very pleased. I very much endorse what he said, and I note his experience of this matter and his support for my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury.

I should like to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson)—to whom I wish also to pay tribute for his many years of service, not only in the reserves and in the cadets—that I wholly agree with him that this is a national question, not a partisan question to do with some small section of the armed forces. The TA—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Motherwell, North is being summoned by his pager, perhaps from on high. He is being called for, Madam Speaker. I hope that it is not bad news.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood rightly said that this is a national matter. It is not something that involves only a chunk of our service life. The matter goes much further than the TA. Indeed, it goes to the ethos of service, to the encouragement of cadets and the importance that cadets, territorial and regular service life play in our national community.

In some excellent debates in Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) encouraged, among other things, greater use of the reserve forces. I am pleased to announce that the Royal Air Force Reserve has come forward with an innovative concept that will enable reservists to take their rightful place alongside Royal Air Force personnel who are engaged in operations.

The development of composite squadrons was foreshadowed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who, alas, cannot be with us today because he has been struck down by flu. He presaged the development of such squadrons on Second Reading. No one has been more unstinting nor more devoted in pressing for this important change in legislation. I know that the House will want to wish my right hon. Friend well.

I am delighted to be able to announce—I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries will be delighted to hear—that the Royal Air Force intends to form a Royal Auxiliary Air Force helicopter support squadron on 1 October 1996, which will be based at RAF Benson.

Initially, the concept of working in an operational environment alongside regular personnel will be tested to establish how a composite squadron might augment the support helicopter force in times of crisis, if successful. The concept may well be extended to other operational roles. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will be pleased that the RAF has been able to come forward with an admirable further use of reserves in an extremely important area.

Mr. Wilkinson

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for making an announcement that will be widely welcomed in the House and throughout the country. Will the concept allow an overdue opportunity for one of the existing Royal Auxiliary Air Force squadrons to be resuscitated, together with a squadron badge and a colour?

Mr. Soames

I am not able to make that announcement today; the whys, wherefores and hows are being examined. As my hon. Friend knows, nothing would give Conservative Members greater pleasure than to be able to do what he asks. I am sure that he can think of suitable numbers and badges. We may decide not to go into those matters today.

As an example of the sort of advice we receive from the TA and through the chain of command, I remind the House and those who served in Committee that I quoted from a letter from the Brigadier TA, Richard Holmes, who wrote to me on whether an anti-discrimination measure would be useful. Those present in Committee will recall that he expressed himself forcefully and, I believe, correctly.

In addition to the Brigadier TA, there are corresponding roles in the other volunteer reserves. The Royal Naval Reserve has the Commodore Royal Naval Reserve. The Royal Marines Reserve has the Colonel Royal Marines Reserve. The Royal Auxiliary Air Force has the Inspector Royal Auxiliary Air Forces. Ministers, senior officers and officials regularly receive and seek advice from these officers. In addition, there is a TA colonel on the staff of the Director of Reserve Forces and Cadets, who advises specifically on volunteer reserve matters.

As my hon. Friend knows, I regularly see serving TA officers. I take the most careful note of their advice, which is often invaluable. I have extensive contacts in my capacity as Minister of State for the Armed Forces with the Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve Association and with many serving TA officers at all ranks.

We wish TA officers to achieve higher ranks and to fulfil the demanding requirements of command and staff appointments. That means that they need access to relevant courses and appropriate opportunities for career development in the TA. We are therefore considering opportunities to increase the scope of TA officers to obtain the necessary qualifications for command and staff appointments. We intend especially to encourage a further TA presence at the junior command and staff college.

In addition, I am actively considering the possibility of TA officers attending the higher command and staff college. I aim to increase the number of TA staff appointments at lieutenant-colonel and major levels, which will help to broaden the range and experience of serving officers, and so fit them for a wider and higher range of command.

A further development, with which I hope the House will be pleased, is our intention to appoint TA brigadiers to a post in the directorate of development and doctrine some time later this year, and also the post of Director of Reserve Forces and Cadets in the Ministry of Defence in 1997. I hope that it will be possible to announce the appointment to the doctrine post before the summer recess. It goes without saying that all appointments will— and I know my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury entirely understands—be subject to the availability of candidates of the appropriate calibre.

4.30 pm

Mr. Brazier

Of course, the appointments must be subject to the availability of candidates of the appropriate calibre. Will my hon. Friend give a pledge here and now that the posts will not be confined to candidates who are available full-time? Given that counterpart posts in Canada, Australia and many individual American states are ably filled by part-timers, can my hon. Friend confirm that part-timers will be allowed to fill those posts?

Mr. Soames

If my hon. Friend can contain himself for one minute, I hope that I will be able to give him some news that may give him more pleasure than he has a right to expect.

It goes without saying that all appointments will be subject to the availability of candidates of the appropriate calibre who are able and willing to take up the post.

The post of Director of Reserve Forces and Cadets was intended to be full-time. However, it is often difficult to find suitable candidates from the reserves to take up full-time appointments.

The high-calibre individuals we would seek almost invariably have a challenging, rewarding and extremely demanding civilian career. It is not easy for them to drop that career for a two or three-year tour in a reserve job. The higher the rank, the greater is the difficulty, especially if candidates have been expected already to devote considerable time to command and staff tours.

The difficulties would have prevented us from appointing a reserve officer to the post of Director of Reserve Forces and Cadets on a full-time basis. I have therefore decided that the post should be filled on a part-time basis. That will give the services a number of possible candidates from whom to pick the officer best suited for the job. I hope that that will lead to an early decision on the appointment, which could take effect in 1997. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will welcome that as a significant and important development. It underlines our determination to make the best possible use of the expertise available to us in the reserve forces.

The new clause envisages the creation of a part-time two-star post. The incumbent of such a post would find it, in our judgment, extremely difficult to undertake the tasks. He could hardly be held accountable for the activities of a large full-time staff, and he therefore could not hold executive authority. The post might be regarded as purely advisory, but the terms of the new clause are not consistent with that. In any event, such a senior adviser could hardly avoid interfering with the real responsibilities of the chain of command.

As I have mentioned, many sources of advice on reserve issues are available to Ministers. I receive frequent advice from my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries from my hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury, for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes), for Ruislip-Northwood, for Tayside, North and other hon. Friends, as well as from many other areas of what is now known as the reserve community.

It is also difficult to see how a TA officer who, by the nature of his life, will inevitably have spent only short periods in full-time military appointments, could obtain the necessary experience and qualifications to fill a two-star post with responsibilities that will necessarily go wider than purely reserve matters. To do an executive job effectively in the Ministry of Defence needs a different background and experience from that which a reservist will, with the best will in the world, by circumstance be able to possess.

We already have a two-star focus for reserves in the post of the Defence Services Secretary, to whom the Director of Reserve Forces and Cadets reports. As a regular officer, the Defence Services Secretary has the experience and depth of knowledge to integrate the advice he receives from reservists into the wider picture.

My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury will be aware that the Supreme Allied Commander Europe— SACEUR—is looking for input via the NATO national reserve forces committee on much wider issues connected with the establishment and use of reserves. To make an effective contribution to such discussions requires a knowledge and understanding of military issues of doctrine, training and resources that inevitably goes wider than the experience that a volunteer reservist would have been able to gain, unless in exceptional circumstances.

Mr. Brazier

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way for the third time.

The posts on that committee are filled by American and Canadian reservists. Although we welcome what my hon. Friend said earlier, many of us remain committed to the view that, if a Canadian or American reservist general can fill such a post, there is no reason why a British reservist general cannot do so.

Mr. Soames

I find myself in polite and deeply respectful disagreement with my hon. Friend. As he and I have established in discussions on a number of occasions, comparisons with Canada and the United States are not particularly helpful. Comparisons with the United States are unhelpful because the United States reserve forces are very much larger than ours. They have a different staff structure; in particular, they have a large cadre of full-time reservists. A reserve general in the US forces almost invariably has a career of full-time service behind him.

In Canada, many factors—geographical, historical, cultural and strategic, to name but a few—combine to make the Canadian position very different from ours, as I discovered when I went to Canada last year and spent quite a long time with the reserve forces there. We have frequent staff discussions about reserves with the Canadians, and, indeed, with our other NATO allies. The NATO national reserve forces committee provides a specific six-monthly forum for meetings, but there are other important informal contacts. Each of us seeks to learn from the practice of the others. It would, however, be wrong to think that any particular aspect could be simply transplanted from one nation to another.

Most important, I believe that it would be highly damaging to the high reputation and credibility of the Territorial Army if a special two-star post were created merely as a token gesture, especially if it were subsequently filled by an unsuitable candidate. Furthermore, I am convinced that it would be difficult to justify the creation of such a post at a time when the number of two-star posts in the services is being reduced.

For example, in April 1993 there were 56 two-star posts in the Army; there are now only 38, and there are plans to abolish another four by the end of 1997. There is also little evidence that many TA officers aspire to two-star appointments, or consider that the absence of a two-star appointment adversely affects the management of the TA.

Altogether, I consider that the creation of a two-star reservist post is both unnecessary and, at this stage, inappropriate. However, I share my hon. Friend's view that the TA needs to feel that its views are taken fully into account in, perhaps, a more obvious way, and to see that its wishes have been translated into action. Considering that we make such play of the one-army structure, that is only fair. I am considering how I may achieve such a result, and I shall discuss the matter further with the Chief of Defence Staff.

Mr. Bill Walker

I realise that much of the debate concerns the Territorial Army, but my hon. Friend will realise that the Royal Air Force has its different structures. Indeed, he touched on that in connection with the appointment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). There is also the question of the air officer in command of the air cadets, who is a full-time regular RAF officer. Let me make it clear that I am not unhappy with that appointment; what concerns me is that we may be contemplating changes, and may not have looked at where all the ripples are going. It is vital that we do so before finally pledging ourselves.

Mr. Soames

I hope that my hon. Friend knows that, as a keen fisherman, I always look where all the ripples are going. At least 10 per cent. of a speech that I have tried to make as brief as possible was, in fact, devoted to making a major announcement about the RAF, so my hon. Friend has had quite a good go of it.

Irrespective of what I have said, there are a number of technical reasons why I cannot accept the new clause as it stands. I hope that my hon. Friend will understand. I feel obliged, out of courtesy, to list those reasons briefly. [Interruption.] I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) apparently does not want to know those reasons, but I am sure that he will find them interesting.

First, the Crown has always had the power to decide how to organise the armed forces and, in particular, to create or disestablish particular posts.

As a matter of convention, parliamentary control over the armed forces has been limited to the numbers that may be maintained, matters of supply, the powers that are necessary to maintain the armed forces and, as we have recently done, review of the disciplinary powers that accompany the Armed Forces Bill. As far as I am aware, there has never been any post in the armed forces, regular or reserve, that has required to be established by statutory power. We should not create a precedent in this case.

It has also always been within the Crown's prerogative powers to decide which officers to appoint to particular positions, what their duties should be and the staff they should have. The new clause would dictate the appointment, its role and the support it must have. It would even specify the identity of the first incumbent of the proposed chief of staff post. As far as I am aware, there is no precedent for laying those matters down in statute. For that reason if no other, I feel bound to resist the new clause.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood said, my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury has done a signal service for the Territorial Army and for the wider reserves in instigating this debate. His enthusiasm and support for the reserve forces is truly appreciated by us all. I trust that, in the light of what I have said, my hon. Friend will feel able to withdraw his new clause.

Mr. Brazier

I welcome the strong progress in the right direction that has been announced by my hon. Friend. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.