| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Brazier: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way for the third time.
The posts on that committee are filled by American and Canadian reservists. Although we welcome what my hon. Friend said earlier, many of us remain committed to the view that, if a Canadian or American reservist general can fill such a post, there is no reason why a British reservist general cannot do so.
Mr. Soames:
I find myself in polite and deeply respectful disagreement with my hon. Friend. As he and I have established in discussions on a number of occasions, comparisons with Canada and the United States are not particularly helpful. Comparisons with the United States are unhelpful because the United States reserve forces are very much larger than ours. They have a different staff structure; in particular, they have a large cadre of full-time reservists. A reserve general in the US forces almost invariably has a career of full-time service behind him.
In Canada, many factors--geographical, historical, cultural and strategic, to name but a few--combine to make the Canadian position very different from ours, as I discovered when I went to Canada last year and spent quite a long time with the reserve forces there. We have frequent staff discussions about reserves with the Canadians, and, indeed, with our other NATO allies. The NATO national reserve forces committee provides a specific six-monthly forum for meetings, but there are other important informal contacts. Each of us seeks to learn from the practice of the others. It would, however, be wrong to think that any particular aspect could be simply transplanted from one nation to another.
Most important, I believe that it would be highly damaging to the high reputation and credibility of the Territorial Army if a special two-star post were created merely as a token gesture, especially if it were subsequently filled by an unsuitable candidate. Furthermore, I am convinced that it would be difficult to justify the creation of such a post at a time when the number of two-star posts in the services is being reduced.
For example, in April 1993 there were 56 two-star posts in the Army; there are now only 38, and there are plans to abolish another four by the end of 1997. There is also little evidence that many TA officers aspire to two-star appointments, or consider that the absence of a two-star appointment adversely affects the management of the TA.
Altogether, I consider that the creation of a two-star reservist post is both unnecessary and, at this stage, inappropriate. However, I share my hon. Friend's view that the TA needs to feel that its views are taken fully into account in, perhaps, a more obvious way, and to see that its wishes have been translated into action. Considering that we make such play of the one-army structure, that is only fair. I am considering how I may achieve such a result, and I shall discuss the matter further with the Chief of Defence Staff.
Mr. Bill Walker:
I realise that much of the debate concerns the Territorial Army, but my hon. Friend will realise that the Royal Air Force has its different structures. Indeed, he touched on that in connection with the appointment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). There is also the question of the air officer in command of the air cadets, who is a full-time regular RAF officer. Let me make it clear that I am not unhappy with that appointment; what concerns me is that we may be contemplating changes, and may not have looked at where all the ripples are going. It is vital that we do so before finally pledging ourselves.
Mr. Soames:
I hope that my hon. Friend knows that, as a keen fisherman, I always look where all the ripples are going. At least 10 per cent. of a speech that I have tried to make as brief as possible was, in fact, devoted to making a major announcement about the RAF, so my hon. Friend has had quite a good go of it.
Irrespective of what I have said, there are a number of technical reasons why I cannot accept the new clause as it stands. I hope that my hon. Friend will understand. I feel obliged, out of courtesy, to list those reasons briefly. [Interruption.] I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) apparently does not want to know those reasons, but I am sure that he will find them interesting.
First, the Crown has always had the power to decide how to organise the armed forces and, in particular, to create or disestablish particular posts.
As a matter of convention, parliamentary control over the armed forces has been limited to the numbers that may be maintained, matters of supply, the powers that are necessary to maintain the armed forces and, as we have recently done, review of the disciplinary powers that accompany the Armed Forces Bill. As far as I am aware, there has never been any post in the armed forces, regular or reserve, that has required to be established by statutory power. We should not create a precedent in this case.
It has also always been within the Crown's prerogative powers to decide which officers to appoint to particular positions, what their duties should be and the staff they should have. The new clause would dictate the appointment, its role and the support it must have. It would even specify the identity of the first incumbent of the proposed chief of staff post. As far as I am aware, there is no precedent for laying those matters down in statute. For that reason if no other, I feel bound to resist the new clause.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood said, my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury has done a signal service for the Territorial Army and for the wider reserves in instigating this debate. His enthusiasm and support for the reserve forces is truly appreciated by us all. I trust that, in the light of what I have said, my hon. Friend will feel able to withdraw his new clause.
Mr. Brazier:
I welcome the strong progress in the right direction that has been announced by my hon. Friend. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Paul Murphy (Torfaen):
I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 12, at end insert--
The debate on new clause 1 was interesting and well informed. The thread running through the debates in the House and in Committee was a determination by all hon. Members to ensure that their speeches were well informed.
Parliament has already given powers to authorise the level of the reserve forces, and the amendment refers specifically to the number of permanent people in those forces. They are the non-regular permanent staff or NRPS and the permanent staff administrative officers or PSAOs. As the House knows, those are uniformed administrators. Some months ago the Select Committee on Defence criticised the high number of administrators.
Since 1991, there has been a 17 per cent. increase in non-regular permanent staff, compared with a 33 per cent. decline in the size of the Territorial Army. To pay for those permanent TA members, the nation has to spend nearly £39 million in the current year. No one is suggesting for a second that those officers are in any sense bad at their jobs. We suggest, however, and the Select Committee recommends, much closer monitoring and scrutiny of the number of non-regular permanent staff. The Select Committee report states:
Mr. Soames:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising a matter that we discussed in Committee. He is right to air it again in the House. After considering what was said in Committee and hearing the arguments, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman and I disagree on any material point. However, I hope that he will agree that his probing amendment would not be helpful; nor would it
The origins of the Territorial Army's non-regular permanent staff go back to the setting up of the TA in 1907 when provision was made for there to be permanent staff. Normally, they were to be members of the regular forces, but in special circumstances they could be members of the TA. When setting up the Territorial Army Lord Haldane recognised that it was essential for it to be competently trained and administered, and those requirements hold good today.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) would agree that the size of the permanent staff should not be at the expense of the operational strength of the TA. He made that point strongly in Committee and we all share it. He will also agree that it is important that the volunteer reserve should be appropriately administered and trained. As my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) made plain in Committee, volunteers want to join the TA to do real soldiering, not to carry out purely administrative tasks. The permanent staff frees volunteer reserve officers and senior non-commissioned officers from routine administration, permitting them to concentrate on arranging interesting and challenging training for their units, which surveys have shown to be crucial to improving retention in the TA.
'(3) Parliament shall authorise a maximum number of members of the permanent staff of the reserve forces.'.
"We look to MoD to monitor closely the tasks carried out by Regular and NRPS staff, to civilianise those with no genuine military content, to make full use of the commercial contracts available to the Regular Army and to seek to reduce the current levels of administrative support wherever possible."
Together, the NRPS and the PSAOs account for the most substantial portion of unit pay and expenditure. It is an additional tier of administration with its own career structure, allowances, housing, subsistence, travel, leave and pensions, and it has relatively unlimited tenure. We have a greater proportion of non-regular permanent staff in our Territorial Army than any other Commonwealth country or the United States reserve forces.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |