§ 1 pm
§ Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone and The Weald)I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this important subject. It is a measure of its importance that it is only a month since my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) raised the same subject on the Floor of the House. The attendance today of my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), for Canterbury, for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) and for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) and of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth)—and, indeed, the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell)—also testifies to its importance.
People may well ask why it is necessary to raise the subject so soon after the previous debate. There are various reasons, not least the fact that certain parts of the response by the Minister for the Armed Forces to the last debate—I say this will all due respect to the Minister, and acknowledge that he cannot, of course, prejudge the outcome of the strategic defence review—raised more questions than they answered. Therefore, I want to raise again some crucial points matters affecting the Territorial Army.
It is estimated that, over the past decade, some 750,000 people have, in one way or another, passed through the Territorial Army and received TA training. The TA's present strength is 55,000, and there are 35 infantry battalions. The signals coming from the strategic defence review are that it is principally the infantry battalions that are under threat, which could affect as many as 20,000 members of the TA.
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury previously gave a very eloquent explanation of the TA's wide-ranging role. The TA has a very obvious military role, in that it gives us a consistent base of basic military knowledge that can be called on in times of national emergency. We should remember that there are even now TA members in the Falklands, and that we called on them considerably during the hostilities in the Gulf. I am sure that the House remembers Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes, a former distinguished Conservative Member of Parliament who served in the House when the Conservatives were in government, and who went to the Gulf as a reservist. We have had up to 1,500 people reservists in Bosnia, among whom the TA is still playing a major role. So the TA has a military role—it is not simply a cosy organisation that might be needed at some stage, but is already very actively employed.
The TA has other subsidiary. although still important, roles—not least that of training civilians. At my branch of the TA, which is part of an extremely proud and long-serving regiment—the Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment—I met Private Parker, a young woman who had been unemployed. She trained as a chef in the TA, and is about to go on to serve in the Regular Army for six months. She will then be able to take up civilian employment, having gained a range of qualifications that she did not have before she joined the TA.
The TA has a role in the welfare-to-work initiative, and, of course, uses and employs students who find that the TA offers a financial as well as a character-building advantage. It therefore has several subsidiary civilian roles in addition to its obvious military one.
686 The TA also employs a vast range of people. In our local TA branch, there are chartered surveyors and doctors as well as unemployed 17-year-olds, brought together and learning from one another. I therefore do not think that I have to persuade anyone of the value of the TA, but we have to ask whether, given the sterling work it does, it is really sensible to reduce its strength substantially in order to promote greater numbers in the Regular Army. There is a failure of logic in such a proposal.
The Regular Army is already about 5,000 under strength. In his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury, the Minister for the Armed Forces said that it should not be, that there should not be such gaps, and that we should not use the TA to plug those gaps. However, the gaps exist, and it does not seem sensible—if the Minister wants to dispute this, he can do so when he replies—to increase the gap by creating a greater requirement for the Regular Army, which is not up to strength now, and taking away from the TA, much of which is fully up to strength.
The Minister will doubtless say that last year was a wonderful year for recruitment for the regulars, and that we recruited 97 per cent. of our target, but if there are already gaps, we need to recruit more than 100 per cent. to make any impression at all. If we recruit less than the target, we are simply augmenting the gap. Any gap is regrettable, and it can be dealt with, but the way to do so is not by cutting wholesale into the territorials.
If we cut the number of TA centres and start reducing the number of TA battalions, people will not travel miles and miles to join the TA. The TA operates essentially at a local level, and people will not travel all that far if their local centre disappears.
I deal now with an issue to which the Minister failed to respond adequately in the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury. The role of the cadet forces had, quite rightly, been mentioned, but the Minister said:
I do not understand how the right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) has gained the impression that we are in any way diminishing the role of the cadets—we have supported them."—[Official Report, 8 April 1998; Vol. 310, c. 315.]That is very odd, because the cadets use TA centres. The army cadet force is based on local centres that the TA provides.If we cut huge numbers of TA battalions and greatly reduce its strength, it follows, as night follows day, that the TA centres will disappear. If they do, the army cadet force is simply not going to be able to function as it does at the moment. The latest figures suggest, so the Army tells me, that 30 per cent. of recruits have cadet experience, so the cadet force clearly has a major role to play in supplying and backing up the Regular Army.
My local battalion is an infantry battalion. No army can function without a capable infantry. I know that we are in the age of high technology, but no matter how much ground is won, the infantry are required to hold it. In army tactics, if a steady progression is being made into enemy territory, all sorts of technology can be used to win the ground—ranging from tanks to the most modern missiles—but there is no substitute for the infantry when it comes to holding the ground. Therefore, if the TA is to be cut, it seems rather odd that the infantry is under threat.
§ Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury)Our most recent conflicts in the Gulf and the Falklands were fought over 687 open terrain. Given that open terrain is diminishing throughout the world, if a high-intensity war is fought in a built-up, mountainous or wooded area—to name but three more difficult categories—the need for more infantry becomes even more paramount.
§ Miss WiddecombeMy hon. Friend is absolutely right. The two conflicts demonstrate the point that I was trying to make, and give force to his argument.
My local battalion is fully up to strength, which is more than can be said for many of the regulars. It stands at 503, and has a turnover of about 25 per cent. a year. Therefore, in any given year, 125 people are entering and leaving. Of course, those who leave do so with training and knowledge that they did not have when they joined, and that might be a future resource for the country. The battalion covers Kent, Sussex and east Surrey—although it is not the only battalion operating in those parts—and it has a Victoria Cross to its credit. We should remember that.
During the previous debate on the TA, the Minister made a rather odd comment. He said:
We did not undertake the strategic defence review to create a monument to the past, but to create effective fighting capability for the future.He also said that the reserve
is predicated on home defence".—[Official Report, 8 April 1998; Vol. 310, c. 316-17.]The presence of a VC—the highest honour in active service—should show that there is rather more to the territorials than simply looking after home defence and plugging a few gaps.I know that there is huge concern in my local battalion, which is not confined to the commanding officers and senior ranks, but is felt right down to the newest recruit. I visited my local TA centre only a couple of weeks ago, and every person I spoke to, from the 17-year-olds to those with many years' service, asked the same questions: "Why are the Government undervaluing us? Why are we under threat? Don't the Government understand the role we play?"
If the Regular Army were at full strength and it were necessary to expand it, and if there were severe gaps in the TA, the signals we are getting about the proposals might make a bit more sense, although they would not make complete sense. However, as the reverse is true, the current approach is misguided, and the purpose of today's debate is exactly the same as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury and all the representations from many hon. Members. It is to try to say to the Minister, before it is too late and before any final decisions are taken: please think again in respect of the Territorial Army.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Dr. John Reid)First, I thank the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) for her concern to save me. I deeply appreciate that, and the efforts that she has put into the debate. Today is a significant day, because we have yet another debate on the Territorial Army and because the right hon. Lady has shown us that she remains 688 in training for a return to the Front Bench. It is also my mother's birthday. I am sure that the whole House will join me in wishing her all the best on her 79th birthday.
§ Miss WiddecombeWill the Minister convey my wishes to his mother for a very happy birthday? I am sure that all hon. Members join me in that.
§ Dr. ReidI am most grateful. No doubt that will counter-balance the animosity that my mother feels towards anyone who even mildly criticises me, but I shall explain that the right hon. Lady was doing so in her normal constructive fashion, and is a doughty fighter for her constituents.
The right hon. Lady's remarks were motivated by a concern for the Territorial Army and for genuine defence reasons, and I do not dispute that for a moment. She made a well-informed speech, and I shall address a number of points that she has raised. I shall be less generous than I have been in the previous two debates on the issue, as I am sometimes criticised for not providing answers. Part of the reason is that, every time I give an answer, an hon. Member wishes to dispute what I say, so I cannot address every point. I shall try to address some of the points that have been raised today.
First, it is worth restating, and reminding hon. Members, that the process in which we are engaged has been a uniquely open one. By Ministry of Defence standards, it has been unprecedented in the way in which we have debated and consulted on the issues throughout. This is the second Adjournment debate, and probably the third debate, in which the Territorial Army has featured. The subject has also been raised in seminars and panel discussions, and in written submissions. It seems that a phalanx of TA people is following me to every dinner and discussion that I attend throughout the country to raise various matters with me.
Secondly, it has not been an exercise to find savings, although we have to be realistic about what we can afford. Nor has it been an attempt to protect any one part of the armed forces at the expense of another. Let me say in all courtesy to Opposition Members that there sometimes seems to be a theme running through the legitimate task of protecting the TA that manifests itself as antagonism towards the Regular Army. The Regular Army does not have the public capacity to argue, lobby, publicise and write to Members of Parliament in the same way as the TA does, so I advise Opposition Members to be cautious about turning public opportunities to defend the TA into antagonism towards the regulars, who do not feel that that is a fair representation of the position.
Thirdly, we should try wherever possible to get rid of hypocrisy on these matters. The right hon. Lady spoke with great strength and passion, but she was also a member of a Government who cut the TA by 30,000. Today, she is discussing the possibility of a cut of half that number, and that is speculation. That puts the issue in proportion. If the right hon. Lady felt that it was legitimate in defence of the country to cut the TA by 30,000, she has at least an obligation to accept that, and the fact that numbers are not the only consideration.
§ Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow)Will the Minister give way?
§ Dr. ReidI am trying to reply to questions that have been raised, against an earlier complaint that I was not providing answers. 689 On targets, it is incorrect of the right hon. Lady to say that, if we reach 100 per cent. of our targets, we will not reduce the shortfall. I am sorry, but that is wrong. The targets take account of the shortfall, and we need to get rid of it.
There is a dreadful shortfall in the armed forces, which we inherited from the previous Government. The anticipated target that I inherited in respect of the Army was between 5,500 and 7,500. I can tell the right hon. Lady that the current figure is not 7,500 or even 5,500. We are reducing the shortfall. I anticipate that this year the figure will be significantly beneath 5,000. There is a long way to go, but I fully intend to make sure that the TA is not viewed as a stop-gap for deficiencies inherited from the previous Government, but stands in its own right as a modern and usable force.
§ Dr. ReidNo. I shall make progress. If I have time at the end of my speech, I shall allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene.
Of course we shall take account of the footprint of the Territorial Army throughout the country, and the cadet force will be one of the elements we shall consider. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald should not proclaim publicly that we are cutting resources to the cadets. When the review is concluded, she may find that she is wrong about that as well.
A package of proposals has been put to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. They cover the full range of defence issues: the structure of the regular forces, strategic lift, logistics and medical support, to name but a few. Among those are proposals for the reserves. Taken together, the proposals point towards conclusions that are coherent as a whole, and will give us the flexible and robust forces we need to discharge our policy objectives.
We shall now decide collectively on the final outcome of the review. Rumour and speculation, I understand, are inevitable at this stage, but no final decision has been taken. However, I am confident that the outcome will be good for the armed forces, the reserves and the nation.
I want to talk about what we shall seek to achieve with the reserves. First, we need a Territorial Army that is relevant to today's strategic environment. It must be structured for all the roles and tasks that we can plausibly foresee. The right hon. Lady rightly pointed out that the role of the TA did not relate wholly to home defence or reinforcement in the event of a conventional war against Russia. No one is speculating about getting rid of the TA. However, she must recognise that a significant aspect of the Territorial Army's traditional role over the past decades was predicated on an imminent Soviet Union attack on Europe or the United Kingdom. That was a significant element in the configuration of the TA.
§ Mr. BrazierAnd of the regular forces.
§ Dr. ReidAnd of the regular forces, which is precisely why we are changing the regular forces. I say to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), who is today the aide-de-camp to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and 690 The Weald, and, in his own right, a robust defender of the TA, that, if we modernise the regular forces in all three services, the TA must be modernised.
However pessimistic we may be, none of us expects to wake up tomorrow to the threat of an imminent drop of spetznaz troops on the UK mainland. We must examine the TA's traditional role and consider how we can update it. The previous Government, of which the right hon. Lady was a member, started to change the Territorial Army's role, and that process is continuing and being updated.
I know that the right hon. Lady is a strong supporter of the Territorial Army, and I point out to her that to leave any part of the TA languishing in an outdated cold war role while modernising the rest of the services would do it no service, and would render it irrelevant, subject to criticism and unusable in the future.
Our review has shown that there is a particular need for certain elements that have been mentioned in debates on the TA: signallers, drivers, artillery men and women, military police, intelligence and survey teams. Those are specialists. We need Territorial Army soldiers who can repair battle-damaged vehicles, operate sophisticated military equipment such as the multiple-launch rocket system, deal with local civilian populations, and engage in a wide range of specialist and core military tasks.
It does the TA no service continually to diminish its range of capabilities with the speculative scare stories that we sometimes hear during debates such as this. I expect that the review will conclude that we need many more medical reserves. The review of the whole force configuration shows that there are serious weaknesses in the medical force.
Secondly, we need a Territorial Army that is usable. Achieving that would do the TA a service in future commensurate with what it has done in the past.
A clear, and perhaps not surprising, conclusion of our foreign policy-led analysis is that speed of deployment in an international crisis is important. Reserves are often a cost-effective source of military capability, but they take longer to get ready than regulars. That is particularly true in the case of front-line infantry and armour roles, which demand a great deal of all-arms training.
There are roles for which we can expect to call on reserves at short notice. Some units and individuals must be capable of being deployed on operations with little warning. At present, almost all the Territorial Army is held at low readiness against the remote possibility of a major attack on NATO. That must change. One way in which the TA must change is that, in the event of a major crisis—
§ Mr. BrazierIt could be a matter of months.
§ Dr. ReidThe hon. Gentleman should listen, because I am attempting to make points that should perhaps have been considered by Conservative Members, and make progress on the points made by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald.
One way in which the TA must change is that, in the event of a major crisis, we must be prepared to call out reserves compulsorily and in their thousands if we are fully to exploit the military potential of the TA and other reserves. We ought to consider how we will engender that cultural change, which will enhance the TA's position within our overall force structures. 691 If we are to give practical effect to past rhetoric, we must also improve the mobilisation procedures for the TA, whether for major operations or for individuals volunteering to reinforce the Regular Army on current operations. We need to improve our administrative methods so that they are not ad hoc, and provide a dedicated system of mobilisation for the TA, so that it can be used in its desired roles.
Thirdly, we envisage that the Army we deploy in future operations will be one integrated force, part regular and part— a substantial part— reserves. It would include terries in a wide range of skilled roles, some as individuals working with regulars, many in Territorial Army units. We would be unable to fight a war at any serious level without them. I give testimony today to our gratitude to the TA in the past and to our continuing commitment that it will be usable and relevant in future.
We will need a substantial Territorial Army, which is capable in crisis of reinforcing our armed forces in many areas where we should not try to maintain a full regular capability in peace time. The TA must be shaped to roles that will be relevant to our strategic aims. It must be usable in pursuit of those aims— ready when needed, willing when called out. A relevant and usable Territorial Army, closely integrated with all other armed forces within the United Kingdom defence configuration, is a modern TA, and right for the service of a modern Britain.
§ Mr. GillThe Minister is aware of Conservative Members' great concern about the prospective numbers of the Territorial Army. Does he acknowledge that, if one reduces the size of any organisation below a certain critical mass, it ceases to be viable and sustainable?
§ Dr. ReidOf course I accept that there is a level of critical mass, but that level may be debated. One can increase the effectiveness, capability, usability and relevance of our armed forces while reducing their size. If that is not the case, will the hon. Gentleman tell the House why he supported a reduction of 32 per cent. in 692 the military personnel of the forces under the previous Government? They made that reduction because they thought that it made the forces more usable and more professional in the modern context.
After nine months of a strategic defence debate, Conservative Members' only criticisms have been about size, which is one aspect of one role of one of the reserve forces out of the whole force configuration. If size were the only issue, we would never have given up conscription. We now have a better and more capable Army than we have ever had, but it is much smaller.
§ Mr. BrazierThe Minister has singled out infantry and armour as the only two roles that he does not think are particularly appropriate for the Territorial Army. Will he explain why the most exhaustive trials that America has ever carried out on its armoured infantry forces— in 1992— show that its reserve armoured infantry was only three weeks behind its regulars in readiness?
§ Dr. ReidI am not going to discuss the hon. Gentleman's conclusion, because his premise is wrong. I did not say that there was no role for infantry or armour in the Territorial Army. I said that its traditional role was the defence of the United Kingdom and reinforcement in a conventional war against Russia, which none of us thinks is imminent. Therefore, we must rethink the size and roles of that element. I am trying to create a Territorial Army that, in practice, is relevant, usable, integrated and more professional in future. That does not merely concern size.
I stand second to no one in my respect for the individuals who make up the Territorial Army and who have contributed so much to this country. We will not preserve their future by maintaining them constantly in their past configuration. It is our role to give them a future as well as a proud past—
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)Order. The hon. Gentleman must sit down when I am on my feet. We move to the next debate.