Territorial Army (Hansard, 18 March 2002)

§ 8. Mr. Gregory Barker (Bexhill and Battle)
What his policy is on the Territorial Army. [40904]

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie)
The strategic defence review concluded that the main role of the Territorial Army should be to provide an essential reinforcement for its Regular Army counterparts when deployed on operations. In keeping with that, both volunteer and regular reservists have contributed significantly to operations at home and overseas in recent times.
The strategy for the Army, announced in March last year, identified a number of areas where further study was required to ensure that it can undertake its role as effectively and efficiently as possible. Those studies are ongoing and include how to maximise the contribution of the reserves in an expeditionary environment. In parallel, work on a new chapter of the strategic defence review, following the 11 September attacks, is exploring the role that the armed forces, including the reserves, have in defending and protecting the United Kingdom.

§ Mr. Barker
I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he now admit that it was a catastrophic mistake by the Government since coming to power in 1997 to slash the Territorial Army by more than 18,000 men? Now that it has 2,000 fewer members than his own target of 41,000, how does he expect the hard-pressed TA to cope with the additional responsibility of homeland defence?

§ Dr. Moonie
The cut in TA numbers was entirely appropriate, given the end of the cold war and the reconfiguration of reserve forces.

§ Mr. Jenkin
The Secretary of State said it was a mistake.

§ Dr. Moonie
No, it was not mistake. To put the record straight, the Secretary of State said that initial assumptions involved a much larger cut than the one that was in fact made; the number of reserves therefore remains much higher than might otherwise have been the case—[Interruption.] I am sorry to have to point out to the Opposition that the cold war ended some years ago and that armed forces, even reserves, configured for the cold war have no relevance whatsoever to the situation in which we find ourselves. Reserve forces today are appropriately trained and are of an appropriate number to 13 handle the many tasks that we give them as forces much closer to the regulars than they ever were under the previous Administration.

§ Mr. Nicholas Soames (Mid-Sussex)
Uncharacteristically, that was a less than frank answer from the Minister. It may have escaped his notice that the previous Administration made a serious cut in TA numbers at the end of the cold war; the cut made by the hon. Gentleman's Government was indeed a cut too far. Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Gentleman wrote me a letter on 4 March in which he said, in reply to a parliamentary question, that he was unable to provide the strength and establishment of the TA by unit and location as that information was not available? May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he now reassess the stance of the TA, finding out where it is and what it does, thus producing for Parliament an altogether more coherent, responsible and sensible plan on the deployment of the TA?

§ Dr. Moonie
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are well aware of the structure, function and roles of the TA. The fact that it may be inappropriate to provide a reply on the grounds of cost is well recognised in the civil service; the answer that the hon. Gentleman received was no exception to that. I point out again that our TA forces today are better trained, have higher morale and are far more appropriate than they ever were under any Administration to whom the hon. Gentleman belonged.

§ Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot)
I have to say that it is perfectly clear from the Minister's answer that the Government are in a shambles when it comes to our reserve forces. Not only is he out of step with his Secretary of State, who at least had the courtesy to acknowledge that we were right all along in warning that drastic cuts to the TA would damage our armed forces, but he was unable to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) where those reserve forces are located. It is high time that the Government answered the question that my hon. Friend put to the Minister. Will the Minister tell us when the cuts will be reversed, and give the House an assurance that any extension of TA responsibilities to homeland defence will not be at the expense of its valuable role reinforcing our regular troops?

§ Dr. Moonie
I suppose that, by convention, I must welcome the hon. Gentleman to his position on the Opposition Front Bench. I hope that, during future questions, he will perhaps he better informed than he is just now. Let there be no doubt—I am well aware of where our units are and of what they comprise. It is hardly surprising that I am unaware of the exact numbers in each unit, given the amount of work that we in the Ministry of Defence have to do.
A key part of the new chapter work is exploring the role of the armed forces, including the reserves, in defending and protecting the United Kingdom. The SDR aims to make the TA more relevant, more usable and more integrated with its regular counterparts. The fact that Opposition Members seem to think it appropriate to return to the old TA, consisting of static infantry battalions that would be of no use to anyone, reflects very much to their discredit.