View PDF - United Kingdom Parliament

25 Territorial Army
26 OCTOBER 2009
Territorial Army
26
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful.
Nick Harvey (North Devon) (LD): The financial
problems of the Ministry of Defence are well known to
us all, but of all the possible ways of trying to plug the
gap, doing so through the Territorial Army must surely
be the worst possible candidate. In financial terms, this
amounts to a very small saving. The damage that could
be done, however, is disproportionate to any saving that
could be made.
An increasing burden has been put on the Territorial
Army in recent years. If it were not for its efforts and
the skills it brings from civilian life, we would have
struggled in our operation in Afghanistan in recent
times. It is carrying a far bigger burden than it has ever
been used to bearing in the past. The Government’s
judgment is very wide of the mark, and they would do
very well to reflect on Napoleon’s maxim that “the
moral is to the physical as three to one”, in which case
this decision will do far more damage to the morale and
preparedness of the TA in years to come than is worth
the tiny amount they are going to penny pinch from it. I
think the Government would do well to reflect on this,
and find other ways of making these very meagre cuts
to plug their very big black hole.
Bill Rammell: I absolutely agree with the underlying
assertion of the hon. Gentleman’s question, which is
that the role of the TA is critical to meeting our future
defence capabilities, and, indeed, our existing defence
capabilities. As I said earlier, 544 members of the TA
are currently serving in Afghanistan, and doing an
incredible job on our behalf.
I reiterate that in the changes we are making, no
pre-deployment training will be cut from the reserves.
Having listened to the arguments that have been put
forward, we are also ensuring that through this small
adjustment, we can make sure that during this financial
year there is an ongoing relationship between members
of the TA and the activities they undertake.
Mr. Bruce George (Walsall, South) (Lab): I am not
known to be hostile to the Government on defence, but
I am very concerned about the Territorial Army, knowing
its importance. Three hon. Members signed an early-day
motion that is very modest in its aspirations, not overthe-top.
What I would ask, despite having heard the
explanation, is whether, even at this stage, such a small
amount of money, which must be miniscule compared
with the overall defence budget, can be looked at seriously
again. Does this not send the wrong message? Are we
not talking about the most effective element of our
entire defence budget? Surely some other area could be
plundered if necessary in the short term, instead of
sending that erroneous, potentially damaging message—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am extremely grateful and we
have got the point very clearly.
Bill Rammell: I have great respect for my right hon.
Friend, who has enormous experience in these areas.
We have listened to the concerns and arguments that
have been put forward, which is why we have made this
minor adjustment—in response to those. However, on
the overall argument, if we are to reprioritise our efforts
to the front line in Afghanistan, there are no easy
options in arriving at that conclusion. That is why we
have taken the decisions we have. Nevertheless, we have
listened to the arguments that have been put forward,
and I think that when my right hon. Friend looks at the
detail of what we are proposing, he will find some
reassurance.
Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West) (Con): My
entry is in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
What estimate has the Minister made of the impact that
this will have on recruitment to the Territorial Army?
Bill Rammell: First, this is a savings measure for this
year. Secondly, people within the TA and those who
aspire to join it understand the overall operational
environment within which we are working, and the fact
that we need to focus our efforts on Afghanistan. Thirdly,
I do not believe that this will adversely hit recruitment
to the Territorial Army.
John Reid (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab): I welcome my
hon. Friend’s adjustment. I fully agree with his requirement
to prioritise, and I have full confidence in the Chief of
the General Staff, General Richards. May I also therefore
explain the problem that I have? If prioritisation is to be
carried out and Afghanistan is essentially a conflict
where we have to win the people—not just a conventional
war against an army—then our greatest resource is
people. I therefore believe that it would be right to keep
his decisions under careful review. Like my right hon.
Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), I
would not like us to get into an intransigent position
whereby we have taken a decision that we cannot back
off, and then discover that it is having an effect on that
reservoir of people on whom the armed forces defends,
which includes the Territorial Army. I ask my hon.
Friend please to keep the situation under review.
Bill Rammell: I agree with the underlying thrust of
what my right hon. Friend is saying. There has been—I
choose my words carefully—much debate in the public
and media environment in recent months about Ministers
taking advice from the military, and he is right to
underline the fact that this proposal was put forward by
the Chief of the General Staff and that we have, upon
consideration, agreed with it. Nevertheless, on his point
about careful review, we have not adopted an intransigent
position, as evidenced by the adjustment we are making
this afternoon. As with all decisions, we will keep this
under active review.
Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con): We are looking
forward to seeing the Minister at 5 o’clock. May I urge
him to ask the Chief of the General Staff, in his next
conversation with him, whether he is aware of the
sacrifices that the families of Territorials make, and
whether he would consider imposing such a percentage
cut on the income of regular families in this way? Could
I also ask—
Mr. Speaker: No is the answer, I am afraid; one
question will do.
Bill Rammell: May I say to the hon. Gentleman, who
takes an enormous interest in these matters, that I am
looking forward to the meeting at 5 pm, which I asked
for in order to engage with the all-party group? We can