Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40-45)
RT HON
JOHN REID,
MP, MR DESMOND
BOWEN, MR
IAN ANDREWS
AND LIEUTENANT
GENERAL SIR
ROB FRY
KCB CBE
1 NOVEMBER 2005
Q40 John Smith: Specifically on overstretch
and the greater demands we are putting on our forces, expecting
more fighting power from smaller forces, do you still hold the
view that you used to hold that service personnel should not be
engaged in non-military tasks, thereby freeing them up to focus
on front line capability?
John Reid: You are at an advantage,
having been privy to my closest thoughts, in questioning my consistency.
I can see exactly where this Exocet is heading. Yes, wherever
possible—and you can be sure that I have been asking that
question in deliberations about the reconfiguration. For instance,
to pick a hypothetical subject, aircraft repair. Not every example
of what I applied has borne the fruits I thought it might bear.
At least I am told that, but I am testing the evidence on that.
I see exactly where you are coming from.
Chairman: I am sure we shall have to
ask something further about that at some stage.
Q41 Linda Gilroy: Your answers have
tended to suggest that training strength is much more positive
than it has been and is addressing the issues under the PSA targets
to do with the Army particularly. What about the reserves though?
Are you concerned that the increasingly frequent requirement for
them to serve overseas is affecting recruitment and retention
or have you got that on track too?
John Reid: This goes back to my
own view on reserves which was that they were much more valuable
than others were suggesting and that, during the Strategic Defence
Review, we should have larger numbers than they were suggesting,
though lower than they were at the time, but the quid pro quo
was that they should be deployed more actively. Therefore you
do not join the TA just to be a weekend soldier but to serve your
country when it comes up. That has an upside and a downside. The
upside for TA soldiers and the other reserves is they are actually
engaged and given the respect now, I believe, by the regulars
that they always ought to have had. The downside is it can get
more wearing because you are perhaps being asked to deploy more
regularly than previously. The short answer to your question is
I think the morale in our reserve forces is good. The number is
less than we ought to have. I think they are about 85% of establishment.
One of the ironies in the history, I am sure if we check, is that
whatever level you have for reserve forces, particularly the TA,
we always manage to maintain 85% of the level we picked. No matter
how much we reduce it, it has refused to come down. You asked
me a straight question earlier and I will try and answer it here:
is Iraq the reason for this? We do not think so because we ask
people in the continuous attitude surveys and Iraq is not flagging
up as one of these issues. I think it is probably more of an issue
with recruitment of younger soldiers where the mums and dads,
the gatekeepers, may be more concerned, but it does not seem to
be an issue with the TA and the reserves.
Q42 Linda Gilroy: What about employers?
Are they proving to be a barrier in that respect more than they
used to be or do you have particular programmes targeted at that?
John Reid: Amazingly, I find employers
are hugely supportive. Of course they are supporting people now.
They are not just going and training. They are going to serve
their country and in many cases they are suffering injury. All
of us here would want to pay a tribute to the contribution that
the reserve forces make because it truly is fantastic. The figure
of their participation, for instance in Iraq, is now around 11,000.
That is a lot of people, effort and contribution from our reserve
forces so thanks to them and thanks to the employers, because
this could not happen unless we had good hearted and public service
minded employers in this country. They are not all in the public
sector. Some of these are in the private sector as well. We want
to encourage more of that, obviously.
Chairman: I am conscious that we have
not dealt with procurement issues. I do not know whether colleagues
on the Committee would like to ask any questions about procurement.
We dealt with some procurement issues at the last two evidence
sessions that we held.
Q43 Mr Borrow: We had your colleague
in front of us last week. I wondered if you could give us a commitment
that the industrial defence strategy will be published before
Christmas?
John Reid: Yes. This is what I
have asked for. Not everything that ministers ask for arrives
because as we all know no plan survives first contact with reality,
far less the enemy. I think we have waited years for this. We
have talked about it. It is one of these great policies like the
integrated transport policy. We all love talking about it and
we may even be able to define generally what it means but it never
seems to arrive. I would just like it to arrive. The upside of
that is that, having asked for 20 to 30 years for clarity, British
industry will increasingly find that clarity perhaps is not all
they wanted. They wanted clarity with the indication through that
clarity that they would be able to get all the demand they wanted
for their own products. It is not going to be possible in giving
clarity to please everyone but I hope that it will give both the
Ministry of Defence, the employers and producers in this country
and elsewhere a far better transparency about the future that
enables them to plan and to adapt to changing circumstances and
demand.
Q44 Mr Havard: If it is coming out
in December and you want the clarity and the transparency, how
do you see that debate going forward? How is this document going
to be used to do that?
John Reid: I asked for Paul Drayson
as a minister incidentally, lest there be any controversy round
that. I wanted to bring his skills as a negotiator and businessman
for the benefit of the taxpayer and the armed forces by getting
better value for money. I have asked him to apply his mind, in
consultation with both industry and the various other stakeholders,
including the employers, some of the workers in the industry and
so on, to work out the bones and the outlines of our defence industrial
strategy. In layman's terms what will it do? It will say look,
here is the money that we have over the coming period to spend
on defence equipment. Here is what we think we are going to need
out of that. Here is what we think we would want to buy in Britain
because either for immediate, intermediate or long term strategic
reasons we want to retain that production capacity here. Here
is what we would prefer to buy in Britain but are prepared to
go outside and here is what we will buy off the shelf. That is
a very snappy, 30 second summary. That will not please everyone
but at least it will have a degree of honesty, clarity and assistance
in managing future change which would be absent in the absence
of that but we will not pretend there is going to be enough to
suit everyone.
Q45 Mr Havard: Have you seen the
White Paper? How is the debate going to happen?
John Reid: I have not decided
that yet. Perhaps I can come back to you on that.
Chairman: Secretary of State, this has
been the very briefest canter round the course and it has been
inevitably the first evidence session which has not been able
to go exceedingly deep. Nevertheless, we are very grateful to
you and your team for the answers you have given to us and we
look forward to seeing you again. Thank you very much indeed.
| 
