Defence
Debate between Andrew Murrison and Lord Soames of Fletching(11 years, 1 month ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nicholas Soames
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reserve force facilities there are for each service in West Sussex; how many reservists attend each such base regularly; and if he will make a statement.
[Official Report, 13 September 2013, Vol. 567, c. 888-9W.]
Letter of correction from Andrew Murrison:
An error has been identified in the written answer given to the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) on 13 September 2013.
The full answer given was as follows:
Dr Murrison
[holding answer 10 September 2013]: Detailed in the following table are the names of each reserve force base in West Sussex, the total number of reservists recorded against this group of bases and the number which attend regularly. Regular attendance figures have been determined by the number of reserve personnel who were eligible to receive their bounty within the 12 months previous to 1 July 2013.
Base | Location | Total at base | In regular attendance |
|---|---|---|---|
Baker Barracks | Thorney Island | 250 | 150 |
Crawley TAC | Crawley | 250 | 150 |
The figures in the above table have been rounded to the nearest 10 and should be considered estimates.
Army Volunteer Reserve figures are for trained and untrained Army Reserve including Groups A, B, C and therefore include Mobilised Army Reserve, Officer Training Corps and Non Regular Permanent Staff. They exclude Full Time Reserve Service, Regulars and Gurkhas.
The number of Army Volunteer Reserves shown includes Reserves who may attend bases located throughout the UK, but are recorded against bases in West Sussex because that is where the Unit Headquarters is based.
The correct answer should have been:
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Andrew Murrison and Lord Soames of Fletching(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
Will Ministers join me in paying tribute to the service provided by the defence attachés across the world and to the very important contribution they make to defence diplomacy? Do Ministers agree that defence attachés also have a vital role to play in conflict prevention? Will the Minister make a short report to the House on how that work impinges on their other duties?
Dr Murrison
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about this. In the short time I have been a Defence Minister, I have had the privilege of seeing the work of defence attachés in a number of countries and challenging situations. He can be assured that the Government recognise the importance of defence attachés and defence sections. He can also be assured that they will be at the front and centre of the forthcoming defence engagement strategy, which will be the blueprint for how the Government intend to take forward the extraordinarily important things that the attachés do, and the soft diplomacy in defence deliverables they are able to achieve. They will be absolutely at the front and centre.
Strategic Defence and Security Review
Debate between Andrew Murrison and Lord Soames of Fletching(14 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nicholas Soames
My hon. Friend is right. The problem is that there are overlaps at every level of decision taking in the Ministry of Defence. Two separate audiences are competing with each other. It is extraordinary that an institution that understands the ethos of command is so bad at doing it itself. Some of the most dreadful things were brought to me when I was a Minister. There might have been a terrible military cock-up and it would be taken away to be examined. The issue would come back six months later, but everyone would have had their fingers over it and Ministers would end up being told that it had been a great military triumph. It is true that no one is ever held accountable. The decision making is very lame and very long-winded.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
May I give a practical example to illustrate my hon. Friend’s point? I learned to my horror that the vice-chief of the defence staff had recruited a civilian medical adviser, to parallel the function of the three-star surgeon-general who is doing a very good job—and, of course, at great expense. Perhaps that provides an example of a post the could be cut.
Nicholas Soames
My hon. Friend makes an extremely vivid and important point. We can bet our bottom dollar that there would have been a frightfully good reason for doing it—it should have been blown out of the water on day one.
All this has created the mess we are in, with a £38 billion overspend. One of the most important jobs of the Secretary of State and the Administration is to build an agile strategic military headquarters and Department of State which are able to respond effectively to the rapidly changing environment of the 21st century. That does not exist in the Ministry of Defence at present, and it must be created, which will mean considerable decentralisation. The front-line commanders-in-chief need to be given the tools and the space that they need to do the job. As has been said, they need to be allowed to get on with it, and to stop being micro-managed by civil servants in Whitehall.
I am very pleased that the Secretary of State has engaged Lord Levene and a team of admirable and extremely experienced experts from the private sector to assist in this task, but if they are to drive the huge changes that are needed, senior officers and officials must recognise that what they have built has failed catastrophically, and must change. They must understand the need to transform. The senior military and officials need to own the change themselves, and they need to drive it forward. It will be a complete and fundamental change of culture, but it must be achieved.
Let me end by reading out a quotation that I have read out during almost every speech on defence that I have made in the House for years and years. It is a remarkable speech made by Lord Wavell, which the House should bear in mind as all these changes are being made, and as they think about the men and women at the sharp end—the people who end up having to deal with decisions, sometimes very bad decisions, made in the Ministry of Defence.
Lord Wavell said:
“in the last resort, the end of all military training, the settling of all policy, the ordering of all weaponry and all that goes into the makings of the armed forces is that the deciding factor in battle will always be this. That sooner or later, Private so-and-so will, of his own free will and in the face of great danger, uncertainty and chaos, have to advance to his front in the face of the enemy. If all that goes wrong, after all the training, the intensive preparation and the provision of equipment and expenditure, the system has failed.”
Despite everything, the system has not failed.
The House needs to remember, in the midst of the sometimes idiotic and petty political arguments that separate us in all parts of this House of Commons, that these young men and women are doing something really extraordinary, and doing it at great personal danger and risk to themselves. Ministers must never forget, in this great talk of strategy, this plethora of change and all that will go on at the top, with headquarters being got rid of and people being shuffled around, that they must be able to continue to deliver the really remarkable people who are able to do the job for which all this money is spent. That must be kept at all times in the forefront of the minds of the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State.