| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Menzies Campbell (North-East Fife): Everyone in the House will welcome the Minister's announcement about signallers. I think that the interval between operational tours for signallers in the current year is down to six months--a long way short of the 24 months that is supposed to be the ideal. What effect will the hon. Gentleman's announcement have on the interval between operational tours?
Mr. Spellar: It will assist. I take the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point about the difficulties with signallers. The market in the telecommunications industry is extremely buoyant. I sometimes wish that the industry would train some more of its own people rather than benefiting from the excellent training that our people receive. We recognise that there is overstretch, which is why we are taking measures such as this to ameliorate the problem--not to solve it, because there is a substantial underlying problem facing us and other armed forces. We also need to look to the future to see how we can involve the reserve forces more and retain our training.
Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury): In the light of the Minister's very specific answer on the Royal Signals and
his mention of the reserve forces, can he explain why the number of permanent staff in the signals regiments in the Territorial Army has been reduced? How also will it assist standards in the Territorial Army if we take out the signals regiments from their professional signals brigades, which emphasise professional standards, and put them in with the ad hoc so-called regional brigades?
Mr. Spellar: That will relate to the operational requirements of the Army, because there are signals detachments in various parts of the Army. I will have to look into the other aspect of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but there is always a balance to be struck between the highly skilled people who are required for operations and those who can provide training. There is always a difficulty, particularly when there is undermanning and a large number of engagements. It is within those broad parameters that we face difficulties and need to strike the right balance.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green): I recognise that the Minister wants to get on, and I do not want to delay him too long. He made a point earlier in his speech which led to some interventions. He said that the level of commitment was down to 27 per cent. for the Army. What is the figure for the armed forces overall, including the other two services?
Mr. Spellar: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will give the hon. Gentleman those figures in his reply. However, we all recognise that the most substantial pressures have been in the Army, and we are very pleased to have reduced the figure to a more acceptable and manageable level.
A less obvious effect of operations is the impact on the training of our personnel. It may seem paradoxical, but being engaged on operations, particularly those undertaken in the Balkans and the Gulf, leads to a degree of skill fade among our personnel. The most difficult and collectively demanding thing our forces are trained to do is engage in high-intensity warfighting operations. To maintain their ability to conduct such operations, they need sophisticated and challenging training. This--particularly large-scale collective training--is, by and large, simply not possible for personnel deployed on operations.
It is crucial that our forces do not lose their ability to operate at the very highest end of the conflict spectrum. We cannot afford to relax standards here. Had we needed to fight our way into Kosovo last year, our forces' warfighting skills would have been at a premium. Not only is warfighting our forces ultimate raison d'etre, but long experience has shown us that training hard for the high end of the conflict spectrum equips our forces with the sort of skills that we see put to valued use on non-warfighting operations too.
Successful collective training is, of course, dependent on successful individual training. It is, therefore, crucial that we have the best training system in place for the individuals in the armed forces and for the civilians who support them. That is why Lord Robertson announced, last July, a wide-ranging and fundamental review of individual training and education for the armed forces and Ministry of Defence civilians. That review is complementary to the strategic defence review.
Training is a large and diverse business in the Ministry of Defence, which is the largest single supplier of training in the United Kingdom, and one of the largest in Europe. We train many thousands of people each year, from fast-jet pilots to finance officers. We run more than 40 training establishments, including a joint service command and staff college, a university and a sixth-form college. Like any large organisation, we must also ensure that not only those in the front line but those working in support are trained to conduct their business efficiently and effectively.
As with any other aspect of business, we must ensure from time to time that our training requirement is right and that it is being delivered to the proper standard, achieving the right result and providing value for money. We recognised that the time to do that was now. We need to ensure that the training and education that we provide will meet our operational and business needs in this new century. We need to make sure that our training is delivered by the most effective means, taking advantage of modern technology and methods of learning.
As a wider Government aim, we want to ensure that as much armed forces training and education as possible is relevant to, and recognised in, civilian life. We seek to provide skills for life, not just for the duration of a service career. That has been much appreciated by the service men and women with whom I have had discussions.
These considerations provide a compelling case for a review of our training and education activities. We have now completed the first stage of the review, identifying the key objectives and the areas on which we should focus. Like the strategic defence review, this review will be open and transparent. The House may be aware that I recently chaired a seminar at the Royal United Services Institute on this very subject. A range of distinguished participants from the services and from industry and education attended, all of whom made valuable contributions. I thank the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) for participating in the seminar; his presence was appreciated.
The high value of our people and the need to do more for them have been constant themes of this Government. Improving the lives of service personnel and their families is a long-term goal that we set ourselves from the outset. We are achieving it through our "Policy for People" strategy.
We set out in the l999 Defence White Paper how far we have come towards implementing that policy. We have introduced measures for individuals, and for families too. We have modernised the facilities available for our personnel. We said that we wanted modern forces for a modern world, and that means that we are committed to being modern also in our approach to personnel policies.
Mr. David Drew (Stroud): Clearly it is important that we get right the relationship with families and other dependants. However, when I was doing the armed forces parliamentary scheme last year, I was struck by the lack of appropriate accommodation and support for single people. Will my hon. Friend describe some of the action taken in that regard?
Mr. Spellar: I fully recognise the strength of my hon. Friend's point. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of
State will deal with the question of accommodation at greater length when he replies to the debate. The subject of single living accommodation has been neglected for many years. Buildings need to be repaired and refurbished, as my hon. Friend will describe.
Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot): I support the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). The Minister will be aware that Aldershot has some very substandard accommodation. The Normandy, Bruneval and Rhine barracks--a legacy of Poulson--are especially bad. I understand that they will not be removed until 2005. Given that a lot of single people will be coming to Aldershot with the Princess of Wales Royal Regiment and the Welsh Guards, will the Minister say whether there are any plans to bring forward the refurbishment programme?
Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman is right. The major and significant problem to which he refers is one of long standing. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will deal with the time scale at greater length later, but we recognise the problem.
Sir Archie Hamilton (Epsom and Ewell): If the rumours in the newspapers are right, the whole Aldershot site will be sold off. If so, are not the chances of the accommodation to which my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) referred being improved almost nil?
Mr. Spellar: I have learned not to believe everything I read in the newspapers, not even when I put material into them. That applies especially in this instance. A report on initial training has been prepared for the Army. It focuses on the locations for that training throughout the country, on whether the training takes place at the right places and on whether there is a need for a rebalance, especially in terms of where we recruit for the armed forces, particularly for the Army.
A substantial part of Aldershot is not in the training area. I have already discussed the matter with the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), and provided him with an answer. I cannot be responsible for the headlines in the media, especially those in the Sunday press.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |