§ Lord Crickhowellasked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the representations made to the Director of Infantry and the Chief of the General Staff by Major 105WA General Brian Plummer on behalf of the Royal Welch Fusiliers, the Royal Regiment of Wales and the Royal Welsh Regiment, and by the Lord Morris of Aberavon, the Viscount Tenby and the Lord Crickhowell to the Secretary of State for Defence about battalion titles and other matters arising from Army reorganisation were not accepted, while similar representations on behalf of the Scottish regiments were accepted; and why the Chief of the General Staff informed the House of Commons Select Committee on Defence on 12 January that no requests about names had been made by any division of infantry, other than by the Scots division. [HL,1049]
§ Lord BachThe process of re-structuring the infantry has been worked through by the Army, consulting with the divisions and regiments concerned. Colonels of individual regiments have been directly involved via the colonels commandants of the divisions of infantry. Proposals were submitted to the Executive Committee of the Army Board (ECAB) on a divisional basis by the relevant colonel commandant.
In making this decision ECAB took advice from the colonel commandant of the Prince of Wales's Division as the representative of the regiments concerned and concluded that in line with that recommendation, the new regiment should be called The Royal Welsh and that its two battalions should be called 1st Battalion The Royal Welsh (The Royal Welch Fusiliers) and 2nd Battalion The Royal Welsh (The Royal Regiment of Wales).
With regards to the approach adopted for the Scottish division, in light of our intent to create genuinely large regiments and maximise the benefits thereof in the post arms plot era, ECAB carefully considered whether there were specific circumstances that were unique to the division. The conclusion reached was that the bold move direct to the largest single cap badge (and single tartan) regiment of five battalions warranted the retention of the antecedent names foremost. It was also felt that given the very different nature and large geographical spread of the existing regiments from Scotland, this would help maintain the best possible recruitment in light of such radical change.
It remains the case, notwithstanding the representations referred to by the noble Lord, that the Scottish division was the only one to propose placing the antecedent names foremost during the consultation and decision making process, which informed ECAB's recommendation to the Secretary of State and his subsequent announcement on 16 December. The remarks by the Chief of the General Staff to the Defence Select Committee of the other place on 12 January merely reflect that.
§ Lord Crickhowellasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the views expressed by the Lord Morris of Aberavon, the Viscount Tenby and the Lord Crickhowell to the Secretary of State for Defence about the battalion titles of the Welsh Regiments, the maintenance of their heritage and the location of 106WA regimental headquarters were conveyed to the Chief of the General Staff and the Army Board; and, if so, on what date. [HL1050]
§ Lord BachA record of the exchange of views with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence referred to by the noble Lord that took place on 6 December 2004 was conveyed to the Chief of the General Staff's office the following day. I understand that lie himself read it on 8 December.
In formulating advice to the Secretary of State on the future structure of the infantry, the Executive Committee of the Army Board (ECAB)—chaired by the Chief of the General Staff—initiated an exhaustive consultation process within the infantry and took very careful account of the views of each division of infantry, as expressed by its colonel commandant, on how the restructuring should be implemented. ECAB had in mind at all times the importance of maintaining so far as possible historic linkages and traditions.