View PDF - United Kingdom Parliament

27 Territorial Army
26 OCTOBER 2009
Territorial Army
28
[Bill Rammell]
go into some of the detail of this at that stage. I
understand the concern being put forward on behalf of
families, but I reiterate that if we are to prioritise and
focus our efforts on Afghanistan, that inevitably entails
difficult decisions.
Mr. George Howarth (Knowsley, North and Sefton,
East) (Lab): Does my hon. Friend accept that the
announcement of a £20 million reduction that was
made has already caused a great deal of demoralisation
within the TA? Does he further accept that today’s
announcement, although welcome, does not go far enough
to overcome that demoralisation?
Bill Rammell: I met my right hon. Friend before the
summer recess to discuss his specific concerns. The
original proposals, to which he referred, were driven by
changes in communications technology, which led to an
overall improvement in the capability of the TA.
Nevertheless, in respect of these changes, we have listened
to the arguments that have been put forward by many
Members, himself included, and we have made this
adjustment.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP): Ministry of Defence
statistics show a £4.3 billion defence underspend in
Scotland over recent years? Can the Minister tell us
what the financial consequences of the current TA
situation will be in Scotland?
Bill Rammell: The TA in Scotland will be affected in
exactly the same way as the TA across the country.
Non-pre-deployment training is being affected, but the
adjustment that I am announcing today goes some way
to addressing that concern. The TA, both in Scotland
and across the United Kingdom, makes an enormous
contribution to the safety and security of our country.
Mr. Tom Watson (West Bromwich, East) (Lab): Given
that the cuts were proposed by General Sir Richard
Dannatt, has my hon. Friend announced the first Tory
U-turn? Will he accept my reassurance that he will have
our full support if he is to keep this policy under
constant review?
Bill Rammell: This proposal was put forward by the
current Chief of the General Staff, General Sir David
Richards. Nevertheless, as I said earlier, we will keep
this under active review, and I welcome my hon. Friend’s
contribution towards that.
Mr. Mark Lancaster (North-East Milton Keynes)
(Con): I welcome the announcement that the Minister
has made. It is a small step in the right direction—I
hope that by the end of the evening a few more steps in
the right direction will have been taken. No member of
the TA is to be deployed unless they have passed through
the reserves training and mobilisation centre at Chilwell.
That is currently a testing organisation, but as a result
of this change, the RTMC will become a training
organisation before deployment. At the moment, the
Minister may have inadvertently misled the House,
because some TA soldiers are being deployed at risk. I
simply want his assurance that no more will be deployed
at risk as a result of this decision.
Bill Rammell: I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman
has welcomed this change. I know that it was a suggestion
that he put forward last week, and that is evidence that,
as a Government, we listen to the views that are being
put forward. However, I wish to be clear and specific
about pre-deployment training. The advice provided
through the chain of command from the service chiefs
is that this will not impact on pre-deployment training
and no TA soldier is being deployed at risk.
Ms Sally Keeble (Northampton, North) (Lab): Having
spent some time with the TA as part of the armed forces
parliamentary scheme, I am sure that my hon. Friend
would wish to join in the tributes to the outstanding
work that they have done. Does he accept that for
people who have repeatedly been out to Afghanistan
and Iraq this will look like a very poor return for their
enormous service on the front line?
Bill Rammell: I do pay tribute—I did so earlier—to
the incredible work that the TA does on our behalf.
Members of the TA who have deployed to Afghanistan—
indeed, this applies to the 544 deployed there at the
moment—will understand the necessity to prioritise
towards our efforts there. For that reason, the measure
will provide some support. We have also listened and
made the adjustment that is being put forward this
afternoon.
Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD): The Minister says
that no TA soldiers will be deployed to Afghanistan
unless they have been on pre-deployment training. Does
he accept that a large number of TA soldiers may
choose to walk away because of these spending cuts, so
there will be fewer soldiers to go on pre-deployment
training in any case?
Bill Rammell: I do not believe that that is the case,
and the hon. Gentleman under-represents the commitment
and enthusiasm of members of the TA. I do not believe
that they will walk away. Nevertheless, with the small
adjustment that we are making today, we have made it
clear that we have recognised the need for some ongoing,
month-by-month, paid training for reservists, even if
they are not deploying to Afghanistan. I believe that
that will be welcomed in the reserves.
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley) (Lab): I am sorry for
the Minister, who has become an apologist for a crass
decision. The problem that we face is, as he quite rightly
states, that we have to make tough and hard decisions.
However, we should not make the wrong decision—and
that is what we have seen. Will he reflect on what he has
heard today, go back to the Secretary of State and put
the budget back in place? Otherwise, we will have nobody
left in the TA.
Bill Rammell: I know that my hon. Friend has an
enormous commitment to the Territorial Army.
Nevertheless, with respect, I do not agree with his
assertion. There are no easy options in managing the
defence budget. Let us consider the challenges that we
are facing this year: a significant uplift in recruits to the
regular Army, reduced income from estate disposal and
exchange rate fluctuations. I can honestly say to my
hon. Friend that there are no easy options.