---

Mr. Hoon: I shall deal specifically with those proposals in due course, but I assure my hon. Friend, and the House, that it is not our intention to mess up anything. [Interruption.]

We want to develop a highly versatile, expeditionary Royal Navy, with an increased emphasis on delivering military effect on to land at a time and place of our choosing. Our investment in the two new large aircraft carriers deploying the joint strike fighter, and in new amphibious shipping, will contribute to the transformation of our carrier strike capabilities, and provide a step change in our ability to launch and support forces ashore. Together with additional investment in new submarines and the type 45 destroyers, these developments will make the fleet a formidable fighting force for years to come.

A modernised Royal Air Force will have the capability to maintain air superiority and to deploy forces rapidly worldwide.

Mr. Paul Keetch (Hereford) (LD): The Secretary of State mentioned submarines. Will he take this
 
21 Oct 2004 : Column 1060
 
opportunity to pay his condolences publicly to the sailor in the Royal Canadian Navy who was killed recently on a former Royal Navy warship? What investigations are under way with the Royal Canadian Navy to determine the state of those vessels before they left British control?

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have already paid proper tribute to the serviceman who died. Coincidentally, I had the privilege of meeting my Canadian counterpart at around the time of the incident, and I paid tribute in public to the Canadian who died. I am aware that the Canadian board of inquiry into the events has opened formally, and the UK will co-operate to the full extent that is relevant to that inquiry.

The Royal Air Force will be equipped with modern, highly capable, multi-role fast jet aircraft that are able to deliver the offensive and defensive capabilities currently delivered by single-role aircraft. The RAF will increasingly be able to exploit network capabilities, and it will be equipped with a range of modern, stand-off weapons.

The rebalancing of the Army, however, has attracted the greatest interest. Let me repeat the rationale for making the changes that we propose.

Llew Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab): Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hoon: On this subject?

Llew Smith: On the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Hoon: I give way to my hon. Friend.

Llew Smith: My right hon. Friend referred to future weaponry, and how it will be used. Will he say a little more on the subject, with particular reference to the future role of Trident? In particular, under what circumstances would he agree to its use?

Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend knows full well that no defence Minister ever answer questions such as that. One of the reasons for having Trident is its deterrent effect. To answer such questions would be to give away an important aspect of deterrence. We do not intend to do that.

Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) (Lab): Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab): Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Hoon: If my hon. Friends will forgive me, I was about to deal with a matter—the restructuring of the Army—that has been raised already by at least two hon. Members.

The restructuring will provide the Army with a better balanced mix of capabilities, from tanks and artillery at the heavy end through to enhanced medium- and light-weight capabilities, to increase the deployability of our land forces. These lighter forces are essential if we are to combine speed of deployment with protection and firepower.
 
21 Oct 2004 : Column 1061
 

The key element however is the restructuring of the infantry, made possible by progress towards a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. Here, we have been able to reduce by four the number of infantry battalions continuously available for the Province. In practice, the commitment is for 16 battalions, as a result of the requirement to rotate battalions through this task with 24-month tour intervals.

By reducing the number of infantry battalions by four, the manpower released will be redistributed across the Army, to develop more robust and resilient unit establishments within the infantry and to bolster the most heavily committed specialists, such as logisticians, engineers, signallers and intelligence staff. The phasing out of the historic practice of infantry arms plotting—under which whole units are required to move location and re-role every few years—will also further increase the efficiency and availability of Army resources.

However, that requires us to move individuals between battalions for career development, and to increase breadth of experience. In order to preserve the regimental system and the unquestioned value that it brings, that argues for a future infantry structure based on large regiments of two or more battalions. Those who support the end of arms plotting—and from time to time I hear from people who do—must explain how they would do it if they were not to adopt the approach that we have proposed. On that matter, I have heard nothing at all from Opposition Front-Bench Members.

Mr. Mark Francois (Rayleigh) (Con): Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Iain Luke (Dundee, East) (Lab): Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hoon: In a moment. Since the White Paper's publication last year, the phrase that I have heard most from civilians pontificating about it is the importance of having "boots on the ground". They are right, of course, but the changes that we are introducing will ensure that we have more forces available for operations, while at the same time reducing the burden of operational commitments for both our people and their families.

The changes will mean a new structure for the infantry. We will preserve the strengths of the regimental system, at the same time as providing a more modern structure. The service chiefs and I are determined that the Army should be a modern organisation, capable of adapting to the challenges of the future.

Mr. Francois: It is surely a mistake to reduce the Regular Army by four infantry battalions. When people ask for British troops to be deployed around the world, it is primarily an infantry battalion that they ask for. Is it not significant that the US—the most powerful military power on earth—asked for an infantry battalion when it needed reinforcements? The request was not for signallers or logisticians: it was for British infantry. If the US Army recognises the importance of British infantry battalions, why does not the MOD?

Mr. Hoon: Because, as I said in my earlier statement, we will also be deploying signallers and logisticians to
 
21 Oct 2004 : Column 1062
 
support the infantry that we supply. The hon. Gentleman generally approaches these matters thoughtfully and with an open mind. I invite him to consider the issue that the Government have faced, which is no different from the issue that a previous, Conservative Government faced. In fact, we have reached the same conclusion: if we want to deploy in several operations around the world, the key enablers of those deployments are the people we have been discussing—signallers, logisticians, engineers and intelligence personnel. Those are the people who have been most stretched during recent operations.

One answer—I hear it sometimes from Opposition Front Benchers—is that we should not take on so many operations. When I ask which operations we should refuse to take on, I am usually met with silence. Assuming that we have to take on the operations, we have to provide the right support. The Army recognises that we need to augment the people who are most stretched, and we can do that only by using our existing resources more efficiently.

If an opportunity is created by a draw-down in Northern Ireland to improve the balance of our Army, it is sensible to take it, rather than to consider the issue in terms of boots on the ground or regimental history. We must ask what is best for the current structure of the Army, what is best for the future and how we achieve those requirements. We have reached the same answer as the Conservative Government did in "Options for Change"—a reduction in the number of infantry battalions, but an increase in the number of enablers. That is all that we are doing.

Mr. Francois: I thank the Secretary of State for allowing me a second bite at the cherry. The mistake that he makes is to assume that it is a zero-sum game and that the Army has to be a fixed size, and that therefore, he has to rebalance between infantry and supporting arms. In fact, the way to solve the problem—although it would not be easy—would be to retain those four battalions and address directly the retention issues that cause people to leave the regular Army. If fewer people left, we would have sufficient soldiers to retain the four regular battalions and provide the extra logistic units that we need. That is the way to solve the problem. The Secretary of State knows that I and many of my hon. Friends have been talking about the importance of retention for many years. His approach would be a mistake.

---