| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
House of Commons
Monday 8 November 1999
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
City of Newcastle upon Tyne Bill [Lords]
Kent County Council Bill [Lords]
Medway Council Bill [Lords]
Ordered,
That so much of the Lords Message [4th November] as relates to the City of Newcastle upon Tyne Bill [Lords], the Kent County Council Bill [Lords] and the Medway Council Bill [Lords] be now considered.
Resolved,
That this House concurs with the Lords in their Resolution.--[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.
Oral Answers to Questions
DEFENCE
The Secretary of State was asked--
Territorial Army
1. Mrs. Virginia Bottomley (South-West Surrey): What is the current strength of the Territorial Army. [96122]
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): On the basis of the most recently available data, the strength of the Territorial Army was some 45,000 on 1 September this year.
Mrs. Bottomley: Will the right hon. Gentleman congratulate A company of the third battalion of The Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment? In my constituency, it really took to heart what was said a year ago--that it should contribute to a "heavyweight role" rather than being simply "weekend warriors". It has 11 officers serving overseas, which includes Bosnia and Kosovo. It is, however, deeply disturbed by the lack of resources to train them. The resources and commitment that featured in the rhetoric simply have not been delivered in practice.
What response does the right hon. Gentleman intend to make, especially in the light of the Defence Committee
report published today? According to that report, the Ministry of Defence will have to work very hard
"to demonstrate that the smaller TA truly is better trained than in the past, and better suited for its role in supporting the regular Army."
Mr. Hoon:
I certainly congratulate the Territorial Army in the right hon. Lady's constituency, and I am confident that the proposals in the strategic defence review will contribute to its attempts to become part of an effective contribution to the regular armed forces. I have not had an opportunity to read the Select Committee report in any great detail, but I will do so and will give the right hon. Lady and the House a more detailed response in due course.
I note that the report is thoroughly well-balanced. The Committee recognises the need to monitor the level of overstretch in our armed forces. It concludes that it is too early to judge the overall health of the Territorial Army and the other reserve forces, but makes specific reference to the new reserves training and mobilisation centre at Chilwell--a place that I know very well, because it is close to my constituency. The report says that it should be regarded as having been a success so far, and that it is a valuable asset.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon):
Is the Secretary of State aware that there is dismay in Wales not only at the cut in numbers, but at the potential lowering of the quality of the TA's activities? Is he aware that earlier undertakings to maintain ancillary staff such as caretakers and others involved in the locations where they train have been reneged on, and that redundancies are now being made which make it difficult to keep the weaponry and stocks in those centres? Will the right hon. Gentleman now undertake to look at the figures, and to ensure that there is no reduction in quality, over and above the reduction in quantity?
Mr. Hoon:
I shall examine the figures and the concerns raised by the right hon. Gentleman, but let me make it clear that the whole point of restructuring the TA is to make it more relevant and more usable, and thus to enhance the quality of its contribution to our regular forces.
Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury):
May I be the first to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman, from the Opposition Dispatch Box, on his recent appointment? We know that he must have one of the very best jobs in the Government.
Will the right hon. Gentleman reverse the damage to the TA that has occurred since the strategic defence review? It has been cut by 18,000. We were told that there would be no compulsory call-up, but the Government have changed their mind. We were told that TA members would no longer be trained as formed units, but we now hear that they are to be deployed as formed units. Given that the number of TA members volunteering to serve with the regulars has apparently halved in the past six months, and given that employers are becoming reluctant to take on TA members, will the right hon. Gentleman accept the unanimous advice of the Defence Committee
report, which was published this morning, suspend further reductions in the TA, and reconsider its post-SDR establishment size?
Mr. Hoon:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his good wishes, although I am not so sure about the rest of his comments. I shall not repeat the points that I have already made about the basis of the SDR in relation to the TA, but I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's point about compulsory mobilisation.
A Government of whom the hon. Gentleman was a strong supporter and, no doubt, proud to be a member, encouraged the passing of the Reserve Forces Act 1996. That Act allowed for the compulsory mobilisation of members of the Territorial Army--something that members of the TA have broadly welcomed, recognising that it gives them the opportunity to participate effectively in active service. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not make the same criticism again. It is clear to me that compulsory mobilisation adds to the quality of our reserve forces, and allows them to make a much more effective contribution in the real world than they may have been able to make in the past.
Dr. Nick Palmer (Broxtowe):
I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his kind remarks about the Chilwell mobilisation base in my constituency, whose opening I attended. Is he aware that enthusiasm for the new task is extremely high in the base, and that those to whom I have spoken are somewhat baffled by the Conservatives' idea that it is possible to have a reserve force that turns up or does not turn up when called on, according to individual whim?
Mr. Hoon:
I live close to the Chilwell base, and I know a number of people who work from there. It is my strong impression that those people welcome the changes that the Government promoted in the SDR, and want the TA to play an effective role alongside the regular forces.
2. Mr. Robert Syms (Poole):
If he will make a statement on the manning and recruitment targets for the armed forces. [96123]
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar):
Achievement of full manning is a key objective of the strategic defence review. The Navy expects to achieve full manning balance by April 2002, the Army by April 2005, and the RAF by April 2001. Recruiting across the three services is buoyant. The Royal Marines are having their best year since 1994, and all services report that they are on course to hit targets.
Mr. Syms:
Following the SDR, we have had reductions in manpower and money for regular and reserve forces. The armed services are clearly suffering from overstretch, and the resulting pressures are causing many people to leave early. We now hear that the Government's magic solution is the recruitment of young offenders. Is it not a
Mr. Spellar:
I find it surprising that the Member of Parliament representing Poole did not welcome the good figures for the Royal Marines, which are positive news for his area. Current recruitment figures are the best for a decade. That is partly due to the excellent advertising campaign, the very good recruiting being undertaken on the ground, and the clear messages being given to a range of possible audiences about the attraction of a career in the armed forces. That should be welcomed.
The hon. Gentleman made some facile comments about stories in the press today. He should welcome the fact that, when appropriate, properly selected individuals will be given a second chance in life. Allowing them to serve their country will be good for them, good for the country and good for the armed forces. I think that it is good news, and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is so churlish about it.
Ms Dari Taylor (Stockton, South):
My hon. Friend has talked about the general recruitment targets. He has also set some demanding targets for the recruitment of ethnic minorities. How are those targets being met? There are also demanding targets for the recruitment of women. What progress is being made on those targets?
Mr. Spellar:
We have set a target of a 1 per cent. increase per year in recruitment from the ethnic communities. That means 3 per cent. of total recruitment this year, 4 per cent. next year and 5 per cent. the year after. The Army looks to be on course to hit those targets. The other two services may not, but the Commission for Racial Equality is enormously enthusiastic about the success that we are having and encouraged by it. All the services have run ethnic recruitment operations around the country, including some run on a tri-service basis. The ethnic recruitment teams have shown enormous enthusiasm and have achieved a good deal of success with their target audience. We do not have a target figure for the recruitment of women, but it is pleasing that 13.2 per cent. of new recruits this year are women. That is an increase in the percentage, which means that we are drawing from a larger pool to get the best of our young people for our armed forces.
Mr. Menzies Campbell (North-East Fife):
Is the Minister aware that figures supplied by the House of Commons Library show that in only two of the past eight years have the targets for Army recruitment been met? Is it not clear from those figures, for which the previous Government must take some responsibility, that the failure to recruit adequately is a factor in current overstretch? In those circumstances, is it not unimaginative to reject out of hand the proposal to recruit young offenders, as long as there is no compulsion; those selected demonstrate a genuine desire to lead a more constructive life; and there is careful screening and selection?
Mr. Spellar:
I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It is unfortunate that some people have so cavalierly rejected an initiative that could give some youngsters who have taken a wrong turn in life an
Mr. Brian Jenkins (Tamworth):
Will my hon. Friend send my congratulations, and those of many hon. Members, to the various recruiting departments for the innovation to which he has referred? He knows my involvement with young people, particularly in our cadet forces. What appalled me for many years was the reluctance to take on youngsters who had committed a misdemeanour in the past. Youngsters sometimes go astray because of their environment. Does my hon. Friend agree that the very structure to which those youngsters can now look forward will give them a second chance and will help them to take the path that we as a society would most welcome, rather than the alternative to which some appear willing to condemn them?
Mr. Spellar:
I welcome my hon. Friend's comments, and I want to stress the restrictions and careful safeguards in the exercise. Certain offences will not be ignored. The rules were changed a few years ago to enable people who had served a limited prison sentence to join the armed forces. These proposals, which have been worked out carefully with the Prison Service, would enable those concerned to take courses to show them what life in the services would be like after they have served their sentence. That is encouraging, and shows that the armed forces are taking an imaginative approach. At the same time, it offers a real opportunity to youngsters who may have had an unstructured life to get into the structured life of the armed services, to make something of themselves and to contribute to this country. The forces are warmly to be congratulated on their initiative in this respect.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green):
Despite the Minister's bluster, the reality is that, since the Government came to power, the commitment of Her Majesty's forces is at a level unprecedented at any time since the second world war. Even on best estimates, the level of commitment will be significantly higher than that which the Government inherited. It is not just a matter of recruitment, but of retention of service personnel--between 900 and 1,100 men are leaving the Army alone every month. The situation has got so bad that the Government have had to produce a document for service families which says:
Mr. Spellar:
The hon. Gentleman should tell the House and the nation which of those commitments he would not have undertaken. Would he pull our troops from the streets of Northern Ireland? Does he think that we should not have participated in the NATO operation in Kosovo? The Opposition's foreign affairs spokesman thinks that we should not have participated in East Timor, and that we should have left our friends and allies from Australia
"We want to make it easier for them to keep in touch with their families, and give them more time together when they return."
Their time spent together gets less and less because of Government policies. What are the Government going to do about it?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |