| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hoon:
We are directing our attention to the question of retention, which is an important issue. We have also been remarkably successful recently in recruitment, so that the Army has grown. However, we have to plan not only for this year and next, but for the strategic environment that we have to face for decades to come. That means having the right kinds of structures. For example, the armed forces are facing up to a significant demographic change. They have to recruit competitively among a reducing number of 16, 17 and 18-year-olds and that inevitably means that they have to consider the right mix. We also need to provide our forces with the right training and capabilities to equip them for the job that they do for us today and for opportunities in the future in the civilian job market. The kinds of skills and capabilities that I am describing,
21 Oct 2004 : Column 1063
such as those associated with technology and modern forms of communication, mean that our people are highly prized when they leave the armed forces for civilian employment.
Mr. Luke: My right hon. Friend mentioned the issue of larger regiments. In Scotland, the changes would mean a super-large regiment, with five or six Scottish regiments—depending on the conclusions of the review of the colonels—joining into one organisation. What is the benefit of that compared with the traditional structure: a Scottish division with six regiments that could keep their local and national identities, which are so closely identified with the national spirit of Scotland?
Mr. Hoon: There is a simple, short and—I hope—compelling answer to my hon. Friend's question. We intend to end arms plotting, which is the traditional practice of moving regiments around the country, so that every two years entire regiments, together with their families, are required to move, sometimes from one end of the country to the other and sometimes to re-role—to train for many months—which means that they are no longer available. What we are proposing will provide much greater stability. My hon. Friend rightly values the local connection and our proposals will provide a much better local connection with the new, larger regiments. They will have to be larger, because a single battalion regiment would be fixed in a single place, without the opportunity for career development and change that a larger structure will provide.
I hope that my hon. Friend is persuaded by that argument, because it will be of huge benefit to the men and women who serve, as well as their families. If he is not, I should point out that the new structure is the existing structure of large parts of the present Army. We have already moved to a larger regiment structure. Indeed, that was proposed by the Conservative Government, who unfortunately did not see it through. I suspect that they were afraid of complaints from their older and bolder Members in the Tory shires. The Army strongly supports the new structure and the Army Board recommends it. It will be in the interests of those who serve, and we would fail in our duty if we did not take advantage of this opportunity.
Mr. Michael Moore (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD): The Secretary of State has been generous in giving way and I am grateful to him. Will he accept that there is cross-party opposition to the disbandment of the King's Own Scottish Borderers, the Royal Scots and the other Scottish regiments? We now learn that the Scottish council of colonels has recommended not only that they should lose their regimental status, but that the KSOB and the Royal Scots should be further amalgamated into a single battalion. Will the Secretary of State accept the importance of tradition and identity and quash that ludicrous idea?
Mr. Hoon:
I talked this issue through with the hon. Gentleman and he has always approached it in a considerate and thoughtful way. I assure him that what we seek to achieve through the changes will not have an
21 Oct 2004 : Column 1064
impact on the identity of those single battalion regiments. We are looking to find ways to preserve the history and tradition within the context of a modernised Army structure. I am determined to see that happen as a result of that process.
Mr. Greenway: I am listening very carefully to the Secretary of State's remarks, and I have two comments to make. First, the historic link between some of the regiments and their local communities is hugely valuable to the British Army. I asked the Prime Minister a question a few weeks and I was able to point out that many people believe that those links are what make the British Army the envy of the world, especially in its peacekeeping role. Secondly, the Secretary of State's answers today seem to suggest that he has made up his mind. When will he make a formal announcement about what is to happen, to end the speculation? Can we be certain that we will retain the three Yorkshire cap badges that we now have?
Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman makes his point well and rightly emphasises the historic connections between regiments and local communities. However, under arms plotting, regiments are not necessarily based in their historic localities. Part of the new structure will allow predictability for families. The hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) mentioned retention, but one of the most damaging influences on retention, especially for modern families, is the practice of moving every two years. These days, wives—it is mostly wives—have jobs and children go to local schools. Families have all sorts of connections with their communities. It is incredibly damaging to retention to require families to move every two years because of arms plotting. These proposals will overcome that, and the regional structure that might then develop will strengthen the local connection that the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) praises. It will also provide a greater degree of predictability for the families who, instead of having to move every two years, will be able to establish roots in an area. I hope that that will provide enormous benefits and is a sufficient explanation.
Mr. Hoon: I really must make progress. I have given way a lot, including to the hon. Gentleman already.
Some of the changes have been made possible by the significant steps that we have made towards greater efficiency in the delivery of logistics support and the modernisation of infrastructure. We plan to accelerate the process in the years ahead. Efficiency savings of £2.8 billion are included in our plans. All that money will be recycled to support the delivery of frontline effects. The Government are investing more money in defence. The defence budget will increase by £3.7 billion over the next three years—an average annual growth of 1.4 per cent. in real terms. This represents the largest sustained growth in defence spending for more than 20 years.
It is that sustained investment that makes possible the modernisation of the armed forces to which we are committed.
21 Oct 2004 : Column 1065
Our servicemen and women rightly have a reputation that is second to none. They are a force for good in the world. They are currently supporting the Iraqi and Afghan peoples in building a new and democratic future, having helped them to throw off the shackles of brutal, tyrannical regimes. Our servicemen and women continue to safeguard peace in the Balkans, as they have for 10 years or more.
The security challenges that confront us in the 21st century are very different from those that moulded the size and shape of our armed forces in the past century. International terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the consequences of weak and failing states will require that our armed forces deploy rapidly throughout the world on a wide range of operations. The key to that will be flexibility—of our people, our equipment and our structures.
The changes that the Government are introducing will ensure that our armed forces are best placed to rise to the challenges posed by this changing world.
2.50 pm
Mr. Nicholas Soames (Mid-Sussex) (Con): First, I thank the Secretary of State and sympathise with him, as he must have had a rough week. He has taken important decisions.
On the Secretary of State's points about the great single regiments—the infantry regiments—I hope that he truly understands the links between those regiments; indeed, he must, because the Worcestershire and Sherwood Foresters recruit in his area. It is interesting that the Black Watch, which is to take part in a major deployment outside its area, has 265 years of loyal service to the Crown, and the impact on the regiment of the changes that have been announced has been an unhappy one—deeply imbued as it is with a sense of its identity, traditions and ethos. That point cannot be overstated.
It is impossible to start any speech on defence without paying the warmest possible tribute to the armed forces. They will be receiving many such tributes today, from both sides of the House, made with equal, obvious and true sincerity. Our armed forces are deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Balkans, the Falkland Islands, Cyprus, Northern Ireland and elsewhere, and we salute their professionalism, courage and fortitude. To their families, of whom so much is being asked these days, and who keep the home fires burning, thus doing an irreplaceable job, we send our warmest good wishes.
Britain has a unique place and role in the world. We are a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, the leading European member of NATO, a leading member of the European Union and of the group of the eight most powerful economies in the world. We sit at the beating heart and centre of the Commonwealth. Ours is the fourth largest economy in the world.
As a great trading nation, we have global, commercial and strategic interests to protect. That clearly gives us important responsibilities, opportunities and, perhaps, a slightly different view of the world from some of our partners and allies. It is very much in our national interest to be prepared to play an important part in confronting threats to global peace and stability, whether they come from unstable regimes, rogue states, international terrorism or weapons of mass destruction.
21 Oct 2004 : Column 1066
Those threats should not be considered in isolation, as separate entities and unrelated challenges. A rogue state may support international terrorism. A terrorist could seek to obtain illegal weapons of mass destruction and would, given the opportunity, certainly use them. The role of our armed forces in projecting power and defending our values is beyond price and is perhaps the most golden and valuable asset that our country holds in trust. It is against that scenario that the armed forces have to plan and operate.
Indeed, the Government accept that, over the past seven years, the definition and range of Britain's interests has widened beyond even that foretold in the strategic defence review, as the Secretary of State regularly says, and as a result, the military tasks demanded of our armed forces have become more and more intensive. Thus, certain proposals in the future capabilities paper seem quite astonishing.
The recent defence White Paper represents a shift away from an emphasis on numbers of platforms, as the Secretary of State said, and of people to a new emphasis on effects and outcomes—nobody can say that is not important—and exploitation of the opportunities presented by new technologies and network-enabled capability. Its central theme is rebalancing and transformation. We recognise the importance of both. However, what is sometimes defined as America's new way of war, which includes such concepts as effects-based operations and network-centric warfare, should not be allowed to cloud the fact that although new technologies can certainly be crucial assets at a tactical level, they must not be confused with ensuring that our armed forces have sufficient manpower and equipment to carry out their tasks.
It is our judgment that the Government are moving away from the proper balance required between manpower and technology. The Secretary of State's theory, expounded in his statement in July, that measuring capability in our armed forces by the number of units or platforms in their possession will no longer be significant—a statement he has broadly repeated this afternoon—is plain wrong.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |