Lord Harlech
Main Page: Lord Harlech (Conservative - Excepted Hereditary)Department Debates - View all Lord Harlech's debates with the Ministry of Defence
(2 days ago)
Lords ChamberMy Lords, I declare my interest as a serving Army Reserve officer with the 1st Battalion London Guards and as a member of the APPG for Climate, Nature and Security. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McCabe, on an outstanding maiden speech.
We are right to recognise the scale of the threat we now face. As the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, outlined in his introduction, the world is becoming more dangerous, not less. Russia’s ambitions have not dimmed. Our adversaries’ reach is growing. As we have heard from other noble Lords, grey zone warfare is no longer a theory; it is being waged against us daily—from cyberattacks to disinformation, sabotage and political subversion.
The review sets out a bold vision: rebuilding the Armed Forces, lifting defence spending, investing in new capabilities and reasserting our role within NATO. All this is not only welcome but necessary. But, if we are serious about national defence, we cannot afford to let ambition outpace delivery. Nowhere is that more at risk than in our treatment of the Reserve Forces. For too long, we have treated reserves as an afterthought and a just-in-case solution, too often called on at short notice, handed outdated kit, sidelined from training opportunities and then expected to deliver at the same standard as regulars. That is not a strategy.
As my noble friend Lord De Mauley outlined, if we are to rely more heavily on the reserves, as the review suggests, we must be honest about what that actually requires. It means giving them the same standard of equipment—no more trickle-down hand-me-downs. It means equal access to courses and training opportunities. Too often, reserves find themselves bumped off areas by cadets or even airsoft groups. That is not how a serious military trains. It means securing the reserve estate itself. I have visited centres where the infrastructure is visibly crumbling, with leaking roofs, obsolete classrooms, and armouries and ranges that have not been safe or functional in years. That is not resilience; that is neglect.
This is not the fault of the RFCAs, which do what they can with what they have. We need a properly costed, funded and long-term plan to restore the reserve estate—not “patch and mend” or “fix it when it breaks”. From what I have seen, RDEL is too low and CDEL is non-existent in the reserve infrastructure context. What has happened to the reserve estate optimisation plan?
My first question to the Minister is: will the MoD commit to a strategic funded upgrade plan of reserve infrastructure that matches the SDR’s ambitions, with the facilities required to deliver training and operational capability? When the next war comes—and it will come—it will be too late to discover that the people we were relying on have been left behind by the very system that claims to need them.
So, yes, let us support the aims of this review; let us invest in a credible nuclear deterrent; and let us embrace the potential of AI, drones and precision long-range fires. But let us also remember that the Armed Forces are built not on capability statements but on people. When we want our reserves to be ready to fight alongside the regulars, they must be trained, equipped and respected as equals, not as a budget-saving measure.
I know that our Minister and the Minister for Veterans and People value reservists, but too often words are not matched by action. So I ask the Minister: if, in the words of the Prime Minister, we are to move to war-fighting readiness, will reservists be given legal job protection not only for mobilisation but for training, as in the US, Canada, and Australia? Will the MoD introduce a reservist skills passport in line with the army talent management system being rolled out to regulars, to tangibly demonstrate the value that reservists bring to civilian employers by giving equivalence to military courses and qualifications, as is also the case in our Five Eyes counterparts?
The fine work of the SDR cannot be another glossy document followed by excuses. This must be the moment we stop hollowing out our defences and start rebuilding properly, with purpose and for the long term.