| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. John Reid (Motherwell, North): I very much agree with the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), who pointed out the importance of this issue, and expressed the wish that we could spend more time discussing such issues, with more hon. Members present, and see them reported more widely. Nevertheless, I must say, as I gaze at the empty spaces in the heavens above us, that, no matter how often we discuss defence and no matter how important the subject, it appears that those who report our debates to the nation have their own priorities and their own agenda when it comes to the military--and unfortunately, matters of great importance go largely unreported.
On the substance of new clause 1, it will not surprise Conservative Members who spoke in its favour to know that I and my colleagues have considerable sympathy with what they said. Several times in the past few years, I have spoken about the importance of the Territorial Army in particular and reserves in general, which I believe extends far beyond their pure military importance, crucial though that is. There is an increasing gap between civilian society and military society because of the lack of conscription, and the reduced numbers, with every passing year, of those who have served in the armed forces. That gap can be bridged largely, although not exclusively, by the membership of the reserve forces and the cadets.
The argument, although laid out in detail in the new clause, may be made briefly. Hon. Members who argue for the new clause say two things. First, they say that the director general of the reserve forces should be a member of the reserve forces himself or herself. Secondly, they say that the status of the post should be improved, to generate not only internally but externally--among members of the Regular Army, politicians and the public--an understanding that the post is viewed with importance by those who must take decisions.
Hon. Members have made a good case for that, for three reasons. First, there is a feeling--justified or not--which I perceive as I speak to members of the reserve forces, that they may sometimes be treated as second-class citizens by the Regular armed forces. Whether that is the result of lack of understanding or of the natural self-interest of members of the Regular forces, I do not know, but there is a good case, at a time when we are discussing and backing a "one army" or "one armed force" concept, for doing everything possible to overcome that perception by telling members of our reserve forces, "Yes, we do regard you as equal partners in this one army, this one armed force. To signify that, we shall make the small but significant change of saying that the leadership of this part of the united armed forces will be drawn from the reserves."
The second argument was made by every hon. Member who spoke--that we must have at the centre of our policy making, our strategic tactical thinking about doctrine and practical problems like mobilisation, someone who has experience, not only of the positive attributes of our reserve forces, but of the problems that confront a member of the reserve force that do not confront Regulars.
Family problems, which were mentioned, always exist in the Regulars, but are especially acute in the reserves. There are employment problems, which obviously apply only to reserves, and may apply even more now that we are creating new categories of reserves. There are also general logistical problems. No matter how bright and committed the regular soldier, service man or woman who is appointed director general, with the best will in the world they will not have personal experience.
My third reason can be put more simply. The Defence Select Committee--people who are well versed, well exercised and obviously deeply knowledgeable on the subject, as was demonstrated by their report on reserve forces and the Territorial Army--feels that this subject is worthy of consideration. If I were Minister, that would be enough to make me think.
I have one reservation: it is neither my style nor my inclination to impose a detailed structural amendment on the armed forces when they appear to be not entirely happy with it. However, I understand that, on this occasion, there may be less ground for such reluctance, because most of the people who have been involved in this are regular members of the armed forces. There has also been wide consultation on this document. However, we should not get to this stage and not give the Minister one more chance to consult people. That would be pushing it a little too precipitately, as there will be other occasions on which the Bill will be discussed in the House.
Obviously, I am an Opposition Member and I do not have access to consultations of this nature--yet. My colleagues and I will listen attentively to what the
Minister says tonight. I urge him to take full consideration of the arguments that have been put by his hon. Friends and by the Defence Select Committee, and of the views that are widely held by members of the reserve forces. We value the reserve forces, and we are saying to them that they are part of a "one armed force" concept. This small step would be symbolic, and would show that we are prepared to say that and to do it in practice.
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames):
I pay a warm tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) who, over the years, has campaigned assiduously on behalf of the volunteer reserves. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) said, hardly a day goes by without a new pamphlet about the reserve forces emerging from my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury.
My hon. Friend has a tremendous energy and an endless stream of ideas about how to make the best use of part of the armed forces of which he is enormously proud and to which he has devoted a great deal of time. He is full to overflowing with ideas for these energetic, well-qualified and well-informed young men and women, all of whom have a greater role to play than perhaps they are able to play now--and everything that we would like to do in future recognises that fact. The legislation seeks to make greater use of our reserve forces.
My hon. Friend is well known as a former serving officer in the Territorial Army. His opinions and advice have always been of great value to us. I pay tribute to him for his unstinting support for the Bill. He was one of the first hon. Members to tell me of his personal and wholehearted support for the legislation. I thank him for the hard work he does in the interests of the reserves.
As I said, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury that the Territorial Army has an extraordinary abundance of people with the enthusiasm and desire to serve their country. I hope that he will feel that that is precisely what we are trying to facilitate within the overall spirit of the legislation.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford):
Will the Minister consider one small point during the Bill's passage through the House? Although TA regulations currently make it clear that the commanding officer of a TA unit should be from the reserves, only four units have such commanding officers, whereas the rest are commanded by Regulars. I think that there is a real problem about the type of message we are sending to those who aspire to run such units and to have an alternative career structure. Will the Minister consider that matter?
Mr. Soames:
I will consider it. If my hon. Friend will let me develop my argument, perhaps he and I could discuss that matter in the light of some figures that I plan to lay before the House later in the debate.
I agree entirely with the spirit behind the new clause, and I acknowledge--again, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood said--that it is supported by a number of my hon. Friends, all of whom have served in the armed forces, and by the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid).
I acknowledge that, in moving the new clause, my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury is seeking to help to improve the arrangements for advice on reserve matters to Ministers and to the Chiefs of Staff. I hope that he will not think that I am being patronising if I say that I know that his heart is entirely in the right place, and I have every sympathy with his sentiments. I share his anxieties that such advice should be given well and effectively, and that it is currently not as well or as effectively given as it should be.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |