| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Soames: I cannot comment on the detail of that matter right now. All I would say, as I have already said, is that the scheme will work only if employers and reservists are confident of the arrangements made by the MOD. If they are not, we will simply not be able to attract the people whom we need. We will make absolutely sure of such confidence. The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point, the detail of which will have to be enshrined in the Bill when we come to a conclusion on how to manage such matters.
The Government recognise the need to safeguard the civilian pension provision of reservists, and the provisions of part VIII allow us so to do. We are fully seized of the need to use these powers if the new provisions are to be a success. We intend to consult closely the pension industry, employers and other interested parties as ideas are developed.
Part IX makes provision for an independent system of appeal tribunals to arbitrate in the case of dispute. It is our intention to make the tribunals informal, fair and quick.
Owing to the pressure of time and the number of hon. Members who want to speak, I have tried to explain in a few moments the essential and cardinal features of what we believe is a very important piece of legislation that is in the interests of the reservists and therefore of the assets of the United Kingdom's armed forces.
Mr. Paul Murphy (Torfaen):
Since the Opposition Front-Bench team are also disappointed at the length of the debate, I shall try to match the brevity of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces.
Labour Members, like the Minister, pay tribute to our reserve forces. I was glad that he specifically referred to the 650 members of the reserve forces who are operating in the former Yugoslavia.
I think that all hon. Members will agree that the reserve forces provide that vital link between local communities and our regular forces, very much like the cadet forces.I am particularly proud that the senior reserve regiment of the British Army--the Royal Monmouthshire (Royal Engineers) Militia, founded in 1577--is partly based in my constituency, with the 100 Field Squadron, located in Chapman house in Cwmbran. It has a long history and we are very proud of it.
The Minister was correct to say that the legislation is now out of date. The Defence Committee said:
For that reason, as well as others, Labour Members will support the Bill in principle. We believe, as the Minister said, that there is a need for a more flexible reserve force, for special skills to be harnessed and for our country to play its part in multinational operations.
As we speak, the French Parliament is debating the future of the French armed forces. We know that other NATO countries are experiencing problems in their reserve forces--especially in the former Yugoslavia and the Gulf--in terms of poor training, inadequate management and awkward call-out measures.
The excellent report produced by the Defence Select Committee last year highlighted our problems.I understand that the turnover rate in the reserve forces is as high as 30 per cent., which compares with 20 per cent. in the United States and 21 per cent. in Australia. There is certainly a need for better recruitment to try to overcome that problem, and for improved training.
On average, only 27 days a year are spent in training in the Territorial Army. That is pretty low by comparison with our NATO counterparts. Officers are given only a two-week course at Sandhurst, compared with six months of training in the United States, 10 weeks in Canada and nine weeks in Australia. There is clearly a need to examine how we manage our reserve forces. I think that the Bill gives the House the opportunity so to do.
In the Navy debate, I and other hon. Members referred to the decline in numbers in the Royal Naval Reserve--the Royal Naval Auxiliary Reserve has gone altogether. We need assurances about the future of the Royal Marine Reserve. The Defence Committee rightly referred to the anxiety about the future of Royal Auxiliary Air Force. In its report, it said:
I hope that, if not today, then in Committee, the Minister can assure hon. Members of the future of those forces.
We are concerned about the cost and efficiency of administration in the reserve forces. I have been told that between 5,000 and 6,000 administrators of one sort or another are in the reserve forces, that the Territorial Army has little influence over its own management, that only a handful of officers reach senior rank and that there is only one brigadier for some 60,000 people. We are concerned about the ratio of administrators to members of the reserve forces. A typical unit has a current strength of 700, with a back-up of about100 administrators. Effectively, because of hours put in by reservists, that is a ratio of one administrator to every one reservist, which is a 300 per cent. increase in 15 years. It is no wonder that the Defence Committee said that the non-regular permanent staff need to be streamlined.
I think that all hon. Members agree that the Bill should not be seen simply as a money-saving exercise or as a substitute for proper funding of our regular forces. Nor should it be seen as a method for back-door privatisation or contractorisation. I know that many hon. Members are concerned about the future of the Ministry of Defence police because clauses 24 to 27 give the Secretary of State powers with which he could privatise it. That possibility has caused great unease, and it is ironic bearing in mind the fact that the Home Secretary has recently talked about increasing the number of regular police people.
Other people regard the sponsored reserve concept as a possible threat from companies that are eager to win Government orders to our regular engineers, electricians and mechanics. Obviously we must take care with that issue. Other problems have to be sorted out with regard to the sponsored reserve concept. Will regular soldiers want to work alongside relatively untrained men? Will employers put undue pressure on employees to join the scheme, especially since firms will be anxious for more business? When training occurs, it is vital that it is carried out during the normal working day.
Employers are critical in making sponsored and high-readiness reserve schemes workable. I hope that we will be assured in Committee that financial safeguards are adequate, that payments to employers are prompt and that the compliance cost assessment--which we will consider in detail--is adequate. Employers were apparently asked to complete a questionnaire that requested information on the additional costs that they would incur if they took on a temporary replacement for an employee on call-out. Only 60 employers responded, eight of whom came from small businesses. That information and the formula must be examined with great care.
We must also be assured that form-filling and bureaucracy will be kept to a minimum. The example set in the Gulf was not good. In the Gulf war, the territorial, auxiliary and volunteer reserve associations commented that the procedures for payment to reservists were so inadequate that reservists
That does not have to happen again. If we are to have a scheme that is workable and acceptable to employers, there must be a proper system that is prompt, fair, efficient and workable.
We must, of course, pay very special attention to employers. Will they be persuaded to release their employees for humanitarian operations? It is well and good for them to release employees for a Falklands war or a Gulf war, but will employers be convinced by call-ups for their people to go to Somalia or Rwanda, for example? We must define very carefully the difference between what the Bill refers to as a "war-like operation" and a humanitarian one.
The high-readiness reserve should not be seen as a stop-gap for skill shortages in the regular forces. One officer was quoted in The Independent in October last year as saying:
That may well be exaggerated, but it is a point. We have to ensure that people who join the high-readiness reserve are people who will be respected and can be employed by the regular forces.
There was a lot of talk in the other place about the problems of medical staff and the difficulties of national health service trusts releasing staff to be reservists.We know that there is a squeeze on resources from both ends--the NHS and the MOD. We have to consider that very carefully.
"The present legislation is untidy, complex and inconsistent. "
"It is disappointing that two years after the Options for Change announcement, when presumably some considerable thought was given to the future role of the RAuxAF, so little has so far been established."
"gave up in the face of bureaucracy".
"Who, if they are any good, can just take nine months off? What we will get will be the freelancing, self-financing adventurers,or back-room people--just the sort we do not want."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |