Nuclear Test Veterans
John Baron Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
We are very proud of and grateful to the Royal Navy and to our Vanguard-class submariners, who are on patrol as we speak, for their service to our country. It is right to recognise that service, but there is a legacy from the dawn of our nuclear deterrent that has yet to be fully recognised and a debt of gratitude that has yet to be fully acknowledged—that is to our British nuclear test veterans.
The deterrent that this country now has would not have been possible without the efforts of 20,000 servicemen during the 1950s and 1960s at nuclear tests in the south Pacific and Australia. The science at the time was not well understood. Precautions, therefore, were primitive and inadequate, and they often failed to protect individuals from the effects of blast, heat and ionising radiation. Many test veterans believe that their health was adversely affected by their service. That view has been substantiated by scientific research undertaken relatively recently by Professor Rowland in New Zealand. That work was peer-reviewed and accepted by the then New Zealand Government.
Some years ago, I was contacted by a constituent about those issues. That initial contact spawned an association with the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association, which is the largest organisation by far that represents both veterans and their descendents. I am pleased to say that I am its patron, and I take this opportunity to commend all those who work for the BNTVA, its membership and especially the chairman, Nige Heaps, and the vice-chairman, Jeff Liddiatt.
After a long campaign, the BNTVA, I and others in the House persuaded the Ministry of Defence, with the help of the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), to undertake a health needs analysis of surviving veterans. Many helpful and practical measures are being introduced as a result, particularly in relation to a veterans pathway through the NHS. Our first priority was to focus on health, given the age profile of the veterans.
Following the success of the health needs analysis, over the summer, the BNTVA, I and others in this place launched the second and final part of our campaign, which essentially involves two main objectives. The first is official recognition from the Prime Minister—preferably orally, but in writing, if not—for the veterans’ unique service. The second part of that campaign, which we are presently in, involves the establishment of a £25 million benevolent fund administered by a board of trustees that would be distributed on the basis of need, not entitlement.
Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter—I apologise, but I will be leaving before the end of the debate, as I have other duties. I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I have at least five survivors and families of survivors from that time in my constituency, and I would be very interested to hear him flesh out more details about the potential funding pot. We have had numerous letters in and out of the MOD since I became an MP in 2010, and I am looking for a glimmer of hope that there will be practical measures as well as support, verbal apologies and congratulations to the servicemen involved at the time.
Mr Baron
The benevolent fund that we are discussing would be distributed on the basis of need and not entitlement, which is terribly important to understand. That is what differentiates this fund from other recognition or compensation elsewhere. There is often an automatic entitlement to compensation in other nuclear test countries if veterans can prove that they were there at the tests and have suffered ill health. The US is an example, as is Canada, and even the Isle of Man. I shall come on to the point in a minute that we are near the bottom of what I would call the international table of decency, in terms of how we treat veterans, compared with other countries.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He does a lot of good work for veterans, in relation not only to nuclear tests, but to reductions in defence forces in general. I welcome the proposal for the £25 million benevolent fund; I think that the suggestion is a practical one on the basis of need. These veterans made a major contribution to understanding the effects of nuclear war. That is very important, and to do that they often sacrificed their health, and they are still suffering for it today. I find it very strange that, in this country, we always have continual battles to get recognition for veterans. Some years ago, it was about getting recognition for the merchant navy during the war. I do not know what it is about this country, but we seem to be falling behind everybody else in recognising the contribution that people have made on our behalf. I hope that we do not make the same mistakes with the veterans of Afghanistan in future.
Mr Baron
Having served myself, I sympathise with what the hon. Gentleman says and I understand the campaigns that he mentions. This is one of the key points that we wish to make about the benevolent fund: if we look at other countries—I shall come on to this very briefly—and compare how they treat their test veterans, we rank very near the bottom. However, I suggest to the Minister—this is where there has been confusion in the MOD before—that the payment should be ex gratia; in other words, there would be no admission of liability. There has been some confusion within the MOD that the BNTVA, as an organisation, has been involved in litigation through the courts, when that has not been the case. If we look at other countries that have made ex gratia payments, we see that the case being made very much stacks up. There would be no admission of guilt or liability, but it would put right an injustice.
It is important to reinforce that point. The campaign organised by the BNTVA, other hon. Members and I has been very much focused on Parliament and not on taking this issue through the courts. Perhaps I should also add that the BNTVA has put in a submission to the medal review led by Sir John Holmes, and it is waiting for the outcome of Sir John’s deliberations. However, that is separate from the campaign that we are discussing today.
I return to both interventions, in a way, and to the point about how other countries treat their test veterans. It is clear, when looking at the comparisons, that we rank towards the bottom of what I would call the international table of decency. Let us take the US for example. Our campaign is about recognition, and all that people have to prove for compensation there is that they were present at a nuclear test—one is sufficient—and there they have a list of more than 100 illnesses. They do not have to provide a causal link between the two. Providing that someone can prove those two things, they will automatically get compensation—£47,000 for the first illness and £47,000 for any secondary attributable illness as a bonus. No causal link between service and illness is required; payment is simply automatic. That is in addition to the fact that veterans in the US have access to free health care.
Commonwealth countries played a great part in our nuclear tests. Canadians were there in large numbers, and Canada pays some £15,000 to each veteran, in addition to war pensions, and enjoys a health care system like the NHS—free at the point of use. Closer to home, the Isle of Man, which has been supportive of our campaign, makes an ex gratia payment of £8,000 to any resident test veteran, and 17 such payments have been made to date.
I stress that our proposals are different from the comparisons that I have just listed, because the £25 million would be distributed on the basis of need, not entitlement. That is why it is important to stress the ex gratia nature of the payment. There is no admission of liability; no admission of guilt. The benevolent fund would be there to help veterans and their descendants who need help with their care and treatment. The fact that someone is a veteran does not necessarily mean that they would gain access to the fund in question.
I urge the Minister, when considering the proposals, to look further afield again. I remind her that in the 1990s this country made an ex gratia payment to Australia that just so happened to be for the exact sum of £25 million, and that payment was made in compensation for having undertaken tests in Australia. It was the equivalent sum of money, and if it is good enough for Australia, I do not see why it is not good enough for our own test veterans. I remind the Minister that Australia already offers a generous pension to its test veterans.
Sir Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I very much appreciate the work that my hon. Friend has put into this. Does he agree that the test veterans, by far and away, will be better supported by the £25 million fund that he has talked about than the Australian Government? In other words, their need is greater than that Government’s ever was. Does he also agree that, with ex gratia payments, far less administrative time, effort and money would have to be put in by the Ministry of Defence and other state bodies in disbursing that money than if compensation was based on a careful assessment of all the criteria implied by a strict compensation scheme?
Mr Baron
I agree completely. The benevolent fund would be administered by a board of trustees; it would be an established charity. It would be up to them to distribute the funds, as I said, on the basis of need, not entitlement, and the payments would be ex gratia. Therefore, there would be no admission of liability or guilt.
Perhaps we need to focus on progress with the Government to date, during the second phase of the campaign, which was launched only on 11 June here in Parliament. We also had a superb art exhibition on the theme of the veterans’ experiences during the tests. Some of the pieces were created by the descendants themselves. Progress since 11 June has been somewhat slow. I had a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who was then responsible for veterans. I had a brief meeting with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I wrote to the Prime Minister. I have now received a response, and there are warm words about the role of the nuclear test veterans, but there is no sympathy for the idea of a benevolent fund at all.
What the Prime Minister did mention was the war pensions scheme, and no doubt the Minister will address at length the generosity of that scheme when it comes to our veterans generally, but many test veterans—I must say this to her—have found the system not sympathetic to their cause. War pensions are fine on paper, but time and again, veterans find that the system is stacked against them. A recent questionnaire of BNTVA members revealed that 90% had seen their application for a war pension declined. For one thing, with claims made seven years after leaving service, the burden of proof is on the claimant to show that the illness or injury was caused by service; for another, the system is time consuming and complicated for these elderly veterans, even when successful. The perception is that they are still having to take on the system. As if to illustrate the point, a British lady received payment from the US for the role that her British husband played, while flying for the RAF, during one of the American nuclear tests. She had been repeatedly refused a war widow’s pension in this country, but managed to get a payment from the US authorities.
The Government, including the Minister, should be in no doubt that we will not walk away from this campaign. On 27 November, veterans and their descendants will march on Parliament to draw attention to the cause. We are determined to see this through. In welcoming the Minister to her new post, may I urge her to reconsider our campaign? After all, the Government have a very good record of recognising just causes and righting past wrongs—mesothelioma and thalidomide victims are just two examples. The nuclear test veterans fit into both categories. I suggest that we do owe our veterans a debt of gratitude for helping to ensure our safety. Many people would argue that they were instrumental in helping us to win the cold war.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his leadership of this campaign. While we are talking about the calibre of the individuals, I want to mention one gentleman in my constituency, who I suspect would prefer not to be named. When I went to see him, he outlined his service during the nuclear tests. He was obviously unaware of the dangers at the time, but he told me—this shows the calibre of individual we are talking about—that had he known the dangers, he would still have done it for the good of his country, because he thought that it was essential. That shows the calibre of these people. We can show that we have a debt of gratitude without, as my hon. Friend correctly said, needing to show a causal link.
Mr Baron
I completely agree. What has been striking in discussing this issue with test veterans has been their dedication to duty for their country, but also the fact that they have less concern about their own well-being and more concern about their descendants. That is an important point for the Minister to take on board.
We should never forget, either, that it was a unique service by these veterans in many respects. The science was unknown and the risks were unquantifiable, but the cost to the veterans and their descendants was very severe indeed. Official recognition—I stress that we are talking about recognition, not compensation, as I hope that I have made clear in relation to the second phase of our campaign—of this unique service and contribution to our defence is therefore only right. If the Government continue to fail to recognise that, they fail not only our veterans but their descendents, and they fail to lift the veil of shame that almost uniquely hangs over this country. The time for action is now. Warm words are no longer enough.
Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Streeter. I congratulate the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) not only on securing today’s debate, but on all the work that he has done in recent years on this important issue.
I recognise the vital job that all our armed forces do and that all our veterans have done for us and the country, including the nuclear test veterans. I recognise the unique nature of their service. I regret the worry and uncertainty that they have experienced in the years since their service. Whatever the facts, it is highly regrettable that we have ended up in the situation that we are in today. It is clear from the comments made that there is a lot of good will and a desire to see an outcome, but there is also frustration that it has not been achieved. I shall refer to that point in a few moments.
I was delighted to meet representatives from the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association earlier this year in Brighton. I am grateful to those from the group who took the time to host a reception and exhibition there. The art exhibition “Shadow of the Bomb” is extremely powerful and helps to convey the spectrum of emotion and feelings with which the test veterans and, indeed, their families live. It helped me to understand that the fear of what might happen, what might have happened and the fear of the unknown can, in a different way, have debilitating effects on some veterans, almost as great as a physical illness. That is also true for their children and grandchildren. We can all appreciate that those are horrible doubts and fears to have to carry around. We have to spend only a short time speaking to the veterans to get a sense of deep uneasiness about their experiences. One image that stuck in my mind was of those carrying out the tests being covered from head to foot in protective clothing, while the serving personnel, as the veterans were then, went about their work just in shorts.
The events took place in the 1950s, and just as they do now, service personnel signed up and did what was asked of them, without question and with 100% commitment. They did so alongside individuals carrying out their national service, who had not volunteered to be there, but they did what was asked of them with just as much commitment. Another difference between then and today is that there is far more scrutiny today of what we ask our service personnel to do and how they are treated, as shown by the recent discussions on whether human rights laws and the concept of negligence should apply to service personnel on operations and in what circumstances.
Times have changed markedly since the 1950s, when there was far less external scrutiny of the treatment of our forces and probably less awareness on the part of the serving personnel themselves about whether what they were being asked to do was unreasonable. We would now, rightly, find troubling the prospect of the deliberate testing of radiation on people who had signed up to protect and defend their country, who did not have full knowledge of the implications or the option to say no or ask questions.
As the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay outlined, the BNTVA is looking for two things: recognition of what happened and their service; and the possibility of some sort of financial settlement. I hope that the debate today goes some way towards providing the recognition sought, but I appreciate that that desire is for recognition to come from a more high-profile source.
The proposed financial settlement is in the form of a benevolent fund. Members may be aware that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), the former veterans’ Minister, authorised a financial settlement proposal. The nuclear test veterans involved in the case at the time were not made aware of the offer, and disappointingly, it appears that the lawyers acting on behalf of the veterans rejected the offer without putting it to them.
Mr Baron
I am pleased that the hon. Lady made that point about the lawyers. As I am sure that she is aware, she is referring to the legal proceedings outside this place, in which the BTNVA has never participated. It has been criticised for not participating by those outside. It is important to make the distinction.
Gemma Doyle
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting that on the record. It is important that we look at the issue, rather than at particular groups representing people. I appreciate the distinction, which is why earlier in my remarks I said that the situation is regrettable because we could by now have come to some sort of settlement or agreement. I fear that lawyers have prevented that from happening. If an agreement had been reached then, an agreement about the wider issues would also have been possible. I understand that the legal route has now been exhausted and no avenues to pursue remain.
I appreciate that the reins on the public purse are tightly held at the moment, but could the Minister look at whether it is possible to allocate money from the LIBOR fund, because that money is already set aside, to kick-start a benevolent fund? There are many demands on the fund and applications to it have been made, but it would be an obvious source of money that could be released quickly and easily. Nothing will ever take away the worry and uncertainty about the impact of the tests, but if something can be done to help to draw a line and help the veterans move forward, we should certainly consider it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Anna Soubry)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Streeter. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) on securing the debate. I pay tribute to all those who have contributed: the hon. Members for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) and for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham), and my hon. Friends the Members for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) and for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell).
This subject evokes considerable passion among some, perhaps even many, people. We have heard the veterans’ cause argued with that passion yet again by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay, and he is right to do so. Members should bring issues that are dear to their hearts to this place, so that we can debate them and causes and ideas can be advanced, only for Ministers then to say too often, unfortunately, “Well, it all sounds very good, but I am afraid I don’t agree with you, and I’m afraid that at the moment this proposal will not advance particularly far within Government. We’ve made our position clear.”
Before I explain why that is, I want to make something absolutely clear. It seemed to be suggested that the Government have not acknowledged the significant role played by the men and women who participated in the nuclear test programme. My hon. Friend quite properly mentioned a letter written to him by the Prime Minister. I repeat some of the Prime Minister’s words, because I cannot put it as eloquently as he did:
“This Government continues to recognise the servicemen who participated in the British nuclear testing programme. Their contribution ensured that the UK was equipped with an appropriate nuclear deterrent during the cold war, which thankfully we never needed to use.”
To be absolutely clear, I do not hesitate to acknowledge the hugely significant role played by all those veterans, and I pay tribute to all who participated in the programme. We owe them a huge debt of gratitude.
Mr Baron
I do not doubt the Minister’s genuineness on this issue, or indeed the Prime Minister’s. The letter that the Minister read out was a response to me. All test veterans would welcome a statement from the Prime Minister addressed to them, officially recognising their role and our debt of gratitude to them. We would prefer it to be given orally—perhaps in a statement in the House—but if not, a written statement would go a long way towards ticking that box, rather than just giving part of a response to me about a wider issue in the campaign.
Anna Soubry
It is not for me to say what the Prime Minister should or should not do, but he has written in clear terms to my hon. Friend, who I assume shared the letter with all those in the association. However, I understand—he will correct me if I am wrong—that not all those who participated in the test programme necessarily belong to the association. I am now putting it on record, in Hansard, for all to see and to broadcast to all veterans the Prime Minister’s clear acknowledgement and tribute to those veterans, as well as his acknowledgement of the great service that they did our country.
Mr Baron
That is very much my point. The Prime Minister’s response was to me. Not every test veteran is a member of the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association. Although I welcome the Minister’s warm words of acknowledgement and gratitude and I do not doubt her genuine intent, a statement to all test veterans from the Prime Minister, preferably orally but if necessary in writing, would cost nothing and would tick that box, and it would be gratefully received by all concerned.
Anna Soubry
I will ensure that the Prime Minister hears my hon. Friend’s words. He will then decide how he may or may not be able to advance the matter. However, I think that my having read out the letter so that it can be publicly recorded in Hansard goes a considerable way towards making it absolutely clear that the Prime Minister acknowledges the great work done and why it was so important.
As we know, for many years, veterans of the nuclear tests have claimed that their health has been damaged by exposure to ionising radiation. The Ministry of Defence has consistently rejected those claims on the basis of the findings of three comprehensive studies on cancer incidence and mortality among nuclear test participants carried out by the independent National Radiological Protection Board. The three studies were conducted and published over a 20-year period, beginning in 1983 and finishing in 2003. Overall levels of cancer incidence and mortality were similar to those in matched service controls, and death rates from all causes were lower than expected from national rates.
On specific cancers, there was some evidence of a raised risk of certain leukaemias, but the researchers concluded that it was due to chance rather than radiation exposure. The Government has every confidence in those independent studies. Accordingly, we believe that there are no grounds for paying compensation to British nuclear test veterans as a group.
In 2010, the MOD commissioned a health needs audit of all BNTVA veteran members resident in the UK. The survey, which had a return rate of 71%, asked respondents to self-report on serious illnesses and long-term conditions diagnosed by a doctor since their participation in the nuclear tests. Overall, the range and severity of problems reported was typical of older people in the UK in general. Whatever their health experience, most respondents indicated that, in general, they felt that their health care needs were being met very well by the NHS; primary care services were particularly well regarded.
My hon. Friend referred to the Rowland report. I am reliably informed that the report, published in a specialist genetics journal, concerned a laboratory-based study of peripheral blood lymphocytes—I apologise for my pronunciation, which may not be great—that were taken in the mid-1990s from 50 New Zealand naval veterans who had been on weather ships 50 to 100 km from the detonation centre of Operation Grapple in 1957-58. Dr Rowland reported the findings of three cytogenetic tests. Two showed no difference between the veterans and matched control groups. The third showed an elevated translocation frequency in the peripheral blood lymphocytes—I am more than happy to share that in plain English with my hon. Friend—of the veterans compared with the control group.
The sample size was acknowledged to be small, and there has been some doubt about the suitability of the control group. Known possible causes of increased translocation include ageing and cigarette smoke as well as ionising radiation. The report emphasises that the study makes no comment on the health status of the veterans. At this time, such cytogenetic tests are not in routine clinical use, because no relationship has been shown between any genetic abnormality and health effects or clinical state.
Mr Baron
May I return to the health needs analysis? I am pleased that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) has now taken his seat, as I paid him a compliment earlier by suggesting that he was instrumental in helping us get the health needs analysis, which was our campaign’s first objective. The veterans of the BNTVA have found it helpful as a pathway to guide them through the NHS.
To return to the science briefly, we can argue about it. Professor Rowland’s report was peer-reviewed and was accepted by the New Zealand Government of the time; the Minister should not skirt over that too lightly. The point that I am suggesting to her is that, compared with other countries that have test veterans, we are near the bottom of the table in terms of how we treat them. Surely, there is a moral obligation to consider where Britain fits in. In many other countries, veterans do not have to establish a causal link between being at the tests and ill health. Compensation comes automatically, although I stress once again that I am not arguing for compensation in this case; I am asking for recognition, as highlighted.
Anna Soubry
I am interested by that intervention. My hon. Friend now seems to be saying that we should put the science to one side, because it perhaps does not suit his argument, but the science is absolutely clear. However, I am more than happy to turn now to the comparison of international provisions for nuclear test veterans.
Anna Soubry
I will deal with this first, and then I will be more than happy to give way. I hope that I can set the record absolutely straight.
Comparisons of provisions in the United Kingdom and other countries can be very misleading. We are not at the bottom, and I do not want these good people, who have served our country so well, to feel that they are in some way being short-changed and that an advantage is being given to test veterans from other countries. I will go through some of the other schemes.
Let us talk about America. The compensation scheme offered by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs must be seen in the context of the United States health care system, which, as we know, is not free. Access to veterans’ health care is for those with service-connected disability of a certain level, and it is means-tested for all veterans, including atomic veterans. I would therefore argue that is not as good as the scheme in our country.
Anna Soubry
No. I am so sorry. I will be happy to give way at the end, but I want to go through all these other countries to put the record straight.
Let us look at the compensation scheme run by the Canadian Government. It was run for just one year—from 2008 until 2009—and it was principally designed for approximately 900 personnel involved in the clean-up of the Chalk River radiation leak, without reference to any illness or injury. If I may say so, therefore, its relevance to our nuclear test veterans is, at best, peripheral.
In France, nuclear test veterans have been eligible for compensation only since 2009, and they were not consulted on the design of the scheme now in existence. As a result, although it may appear more generous than the UK’s war pensions scheme, which I will describe later, the scheme in France demands a greater burden of proof of a link to service. If I may say so, it would do, because it was introduced only in 2009. As a result, we believe only one award has been made in France, which speaks volumes about that scheme.
It is a similar story in Australia, where the compensation scheme operates in part on the basis of a reasonable hypothesis. Again, that may appear, at first blush, to be more generous than the terms of our war pensions scheme, which demands only that a reasonable doubt of a link to service is raised on the basis of reliable evidence. However, in fact, nuclear test veterans in Australia face a tougher test, which is set out in the legislation. For example, for cancer of the bladder, veterans must have received a cumulative dose of at least 100 mSv of ionising radiation a number of years before clinical onset, while there is no such requirement in the UK scheme.
My hon. Friend mentioned the Isle of Man scheme. The Isle of Man decided to award £8,000 to nuclear test veterans, with no proof of medical causation required. That is, of course, a matter for the Manx Parliament. The UK Government rightly have an evidence-based policy. They also strive to provide value for money for the taxpayer, which the Isle of Man has less need to be concerned with, because it has made only two payments.
Mr Baron
Our central argument is not to put the science to one side, as the Minister suggested. We can argue about the science, and both sides will be able to draw justification for their particular line. The Rowland report was certainly peer reviewed and accepted by the New Zealand Government of the day, so it cannot be easily discarded by the Minister.
Let me return, however, to what I call the international table of decency. The Minister needs to check what happens with regard to US veterans, because those who turn up at a veterans’ hospital have access to free health care. In addition, there does not have to be a causal link between being at the tests and one of a series of illnesses—mostly cancer, but other illnesses, too.
The Minister also mentioned Canada; again, no causal link is required, but it is clear that the payment is there to be made. Likewise, the Minister is slightly incorrect, or disingenuous at least, to suggest that we can simply discard the example of the Isle of Man. She says that only two payments have been made, but she also needs to check that figure, because my evidence suggests that 17 have been made to date.
Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
Order. Before I call the Minister, may I repeat the obvious point that interventions should be brief?
Anna Soubry
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for providing that information. That is another compelling argument in relation to the science.
I want to make it absolutely clear that it gives no one any pleasure to stand up and to have to talk about these things, because it sounds as if no one cares. On the contrary, those of us who do not agree with my hon. Friend and the £25 million fund that he advances do so not because we do not care, but because we know what the science says and because—I certainly take this view—we have to set this issue in the context of all our veterans, so that we do justice by everyone. We must always be careful not to be seen in any way to single out one group and put it above another.
I really take issue with the idea that we are somehow being shameful, or that we are in any way wrong, in our attitude to our nuclear test veterans. That is not the case. The existing scheme is good, fair and, arguably, generous, and it is one we should be proud of. Of course one could always argue that anyone in receipt of any form of compensation or benefit should have more, but what we have at the moment is fair and generous.
Let me come on to our scheme, because it is important to put on the record that any veteran who believes they have suffered ill health due to service has the right to apply for no-fault compensation. We therefore have a no-fault compensation scheme under the war pensions scheme. Where there is reliable evidence that disablement is due to service, a war pension is awarded, with the benefit of reasonable doubt always given to the claimant. Nuclear test veterans are no different, and war pensions are paid to claimants for disorders accepted in principle as being caused by radiation, where the evidence raises a reasonable doubt of service-related radiation exposure. In addition, awards are made automatically to nuclear test veterans who developed certain leukaemias within 25 years of participating in the tests. For some, therefore, there is an automatic entitlement, which is absolutely right. Again, that begins to move us up that so-called league table, if, as some would argue, such a table exists.
It should be noted, however, that in May this year the first-tier tribunal, the war pensions and armed forces compensation chamber, delivered a decision in a group action of 14 nuclear test veterans’ war pension appeals. The majority of the appeals were rejected. The tribunal found material exposure where appellants undertook work in forward areas or otherwise came into contact with radiation, but not in relation to the majority of the bystander appellants. The decisions of the tribunal support the MOD’s current policy relating to claims for a war pension made by nuclear test veterans.
Mr Baron
The veterans have made it clear that they find the war pensions process time-consuming and arduous, even when they are successful. We talk about success rates, but 90% of the veterans membership have failed to get a war pension.
As for the international table, the compensation payments in the USA, Canada and so on—although I am focusing on recognition, not compensation—are made in addition to war pensions that are already given to veterans. We should not paint this country’s war pensions as doing anything special, when those are very much automatic in other countries, and there is compensation on top of that.
Anna Soubry
I have made my comments about the so-called league table, and have relied on the information I have been supplied with, but I do not believe that our nuclear test veterans are at the bottom of any league table. I certainly do not believe that our record is shameful.
The Government’s second reason for remaining unable to support a benevolent fund concerns the comparison that my hon. Friend has made with compensation packages provided abroad. I hope that I have dealt with all that. My hon. Friend mentioned the sum—it is actually £20 million—given by the UK Government as compensation to the Australian Government in the 1990s. We should be clear about why that money was made over. The £20 million was ex gratia and was given to the Australian Government to contribute to the total cost of rehabilitating the test sites in Australia. Payments were made in instalments, the last being made in 1998. I do not want it to be suggested that the Government somehow advantaged veterans or other people who served in the forces in Australia.
The Government hold the view that to create a benevolent fund would be tacitly to accept liability for which no legal grounds exist. That was demonstrated in the atomic veterans group litigation for damages against the MOD in 2006. In 2009, 10 lead cases were allowed to proceed to a full trial on causation, at the judge’s discretion, under the Limitation Act 1980; normally, there is a three-year statute of limitations on personal injury claims. The MOD appealed, and in 2010 the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court ruling in all respects, except for one case. In arriving at its judgment, the court also considered the merits of the claims in terms of causation and concluded that their general merits were extremely weak.
Mr Baron
The Minister has been generous in giving way, which is appreciated in a debate of this sort. Payment to a benevolent fund would not necessarily be an admission of liability. An ex gratia payment makes no admission of liability or guilt. We need to make that clear. The Government have made ex gratia payments to other countries, as the Minister readily admits.
Anna Soubry
I must throw that back to my hon. Friend and ask him for what purpose he wants a benevolent fund. Is he saying that the nuclear test veterans’ need is greater than that of other groups of veterans? What would the payment redress?
Mr Baron
I am pleased that we are clarifying this. To repeat what I said earlier, the payments would be dispensed on the basis of need, to help with care and treatment, not on the basis of entitlement. Not all veterans would receive it, but it would be recognition of the fact that their service was in many respects unique, that the science was at the time unknown and that the risk was unquantifiable. Let us not forget that those servicemen were doing national service; that is an important factor. In many respects their service was unique, and we should recognise that.
Defence Reforms
John Baron Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House notes concerns about the Government’s defence reforms in relation to whether its proposals for the reserve forces will deliver either the anticipated cost savings or defence capability; and urges the Government to delay the disbandment of regular units until it is established that the Army Reserve plan is viable and cost-effective.
Let me first express my gratitude to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate. Many of us on both sides of the House believe this to be an important topic for discussion.
I suggest that Government plans to replace 20,000 regulars with 30,000 reservists are on the rocks. Territorial Army numbers are at a low ebb; reserve recruitment targets are being missed; costs are rising; and there are delays and disorganisation. The plans will produce neither the anticipated cost-savings nor the capability envisaged. The time has come to say “Halt”—to halt the axing of the regular battalions and units until we are sure that the reservist plans are both viable and cost-effective. We run the risk of wasting taxpayers’ money on the back of false economies and unrealistic expectations.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Were we not promised by the previous Secretary of State that the cuts to the regular forces would happen only if it were clear that we could increase the reserves? Yet that is not going to happen, so what happened to the original promise?
Mr Baron
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the original plan, which was to allow the build-up of the reserves before we axed regular battalions because it was deemed that deployability was terribly important. Exchanges took place on the Floor of the House in 2011 between the then Defence Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), and my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), which clearly confirm that the plan was to get the balance right—to build up the reservists before winding down the regulars.
My first questions, then, to the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, who is replying to the debate, are: why and when did the plan change? To make this debate as productive as possible, I would be delighted to take interventions from my right hon. Friend if he wishes to answer the questions we pose as the debate proceeds. I think that the questions why and when the plan changed are wholly legitimate ones, because the plan has changed and the House should be in no doubt whatever about that. Just two years ago, the plan was to say, “We will not wind down the regular troops until we know that the reservists are up to strength”. That plan has changed.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and the plan also changed in respect of the original strategic defence and security review. It initially planned for a reduction of 7,000 troops, but it suddenly increased to 13,000 and if recent press reports are to be believed, it might be even higher.
Mr Baron
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. A number of changes to the plan have occurred, but to my knowledge, at no time have we had any explanation from the Dispatch Box of why the plans have changed, of the cost implications or indeed of when they changed.
The entire Army reforms depend on the successful recruitment of reserves. Let us examine that for a moment, and let us remember that without such recruitment up to 30,000, the Army reform plans fall apart. What do we know about recruitment so far? We know that TA numbers have been falling, not rising, since 2009 and are now at their lowest ebb since 2007. We know today that new reservist recruitment targets are being missed. The front page of The Daily Telegraph, under the heading “Reforms have left the Army in chaos” refers to documents clearly showing that reservist recruitment targets both for this and next year are being missed—and not just by a small margin, but by a massive margin—thus bringing the whole plan into doubt. Various reasons are put forward, including criticism of the Ministry of Defence for closing down local recruitment offices, and there is talk about privatisation and Capita, but I think that is somewhat overplayed. What we know is that there has been a lack of communication in the IT systems in the MOD as between Capita and Atlas. There are all sorts of reasons, but the bottom line is that key reserve recruitment targets are being missed.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. The issue of recruitment targets within the reserve forces and the TA cannot be helped when it can take several months to get from someone signing up to join to turning up for their first night’s training. That is too long for people to be delayed along their way.
Mr Baron
My hon. Friend, who has experience of these matters, makes a valid point. [Interruption.] Yes, he is my hon. and gallant Friend.
Other reasons include the draw-down in Afghanistan, which is perhaps not encouraging reservists to sign up, and the fact that employers are reluctant to let key employees go. There is a host of reasons, but as I say, the bottom line is that the key reserve recruitment targets are being missed. Another key concern is that costs may be rising faster than anticipated, yet the Government have not presented to Parliament a fully costed plan, despite numerous requests for them to do so.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
On that point, would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on an observation in the current issue of the Army Reserve Quarterly to the effect that it is all to do with
“rebalancing Her Majesty’s Forces in light of the country’s needs and resources in the years ahead”?
Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this timely debate. Before he deals further with the question of cost, may I as a layman suggest to him that, if the reservists cannot make up their membership in time for the disbandment of the regular battalions, there is bound to be a gap in capability?
Mr Baron
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I shall be dealing with the capability gap—very briefly, if my hon. Friend will forgive me—because I think that it is an important issue, but may I test the patience of the House and stick to the cost issue for the time being? There is a real risk that, if costs rise faster than anticipated, we shall create false economies that will bring the whole project into doubt. That is terribly important, and we are right to ask questions about it on behalf of the taxpayer.
The Government have not come here to present a fully costed plan, but the pieces of the jigsaw that we can see do not reveal a rosy picture. We know from the Green Paper—and the Independent Commission to Review the United Kingdom’s Reserve Forces has confirmed this—that it costs more to train a reservist than to train a regular. We know that those who leave the regular forces to join the reserves will be given a £5,000 bounty, payable over four years. We have some questions about the reservist award, which is the difference between reservists’ pay and what they earn in civilian life. We are told that the potential cost has been accounted for, but the assumptions have not been made clear. We also know that, because employers are reluctant to let key employees go for extended periods, the Government have come up with an incentive for prospective employers amounting to £500 per reservist per month. Those are all added costs, but we still do not know what the fully costed plan is.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
My hon. Friend referred to the Independent Commission to Review the United Kingdom’s Reserve Forces. I serve on the commission, and I do not accept his statistic. Broadly speaking, the cost of a reservist is about a fifth of the cost of his regular counterpart. In America, it is about a quarter, and my guess is that following the changes that we are making, it will be something between a quarter and a fifth.
Mr Baron
I must say to my hon. Friend, with the greatest respect, that he has confused training with deployment. There is no argument in the House about the fact that reservists will be cheaper; the question is, how much cheaper will they be? When costs are rising, do we enter the terrain of false economies—which brings into doubt the whole question of value for money and whether the plan should have been instigated in the first place? I was talking about training. There has been a dispute about whether it costs more to train a regular, but my hon. Friend should know from the Green Paper that it costs more to train a reservist.
However, this is not just about the bits of the jigsaw that we have seen. We know that there are hidden costs further down the line. According to a recent report by the charity Combat Stress, reservists are twice as likely to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder as regular troops. We may be storing up a ticking time bomb for ourselves. The necessary support structures for reservists are not in place, and I should be interested to know whether there are any proposals in that regard.
May I ask the Minister how much of the £1.8 billion—spread over 10 years—has been set aside for the Government’s plans? We are told that that money has been set aside and all is well, but there are various reports that some of it has already been eaten into. Has any of it been spent, and if so, how much?
While I am on the subject of costs, may I question the Minister about the impact assessment, which attempts to take an overall view of the costs? Again, we are dealing with assumptions and projected usage rates, and not all the figures are on the table, but I think we can all agree that the assessment is very dependent on projected usage rates. The way in which the reserve forces are used will depend on assumptions about future costs.
Artificially low rates can create false economies. The central case in the document seems to be based on an assumption of 3,000 annual deployments. I must ask the Minister whether that projection is realistic, given the original rationale of the reserve reforms. We are meant to be replacing 20,000 regular troops with 30,000 reservists. If the central projected use is 3,000, something is not adding up on the terrain. We need to examine the facts very carefully, because, again, we may be creating false economies and the taxpayer may be presented with a much larger bill than was originally envisaged.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
As my hon. Friend knows, I strongly support those who are concerned about a capability gap, but I am slightly worried about some of the figures that he has given. For example, the figure relating to the higher cost of training a reservist is correct on a per-day basis, but it is not correct overall. What worries me is that, if Members give incorrect figures, the Government will very quickly knock them back. Let us stick to the main thrust, which is our fear that there will not be enough soldiers to fight in any future deployments that may take place.
Mr Baron
I am indeed very worried about the possibility that we shall not have enough troops to deploy. I refer my hon. Friend to the Green Paper, which states that it costs more to train a reservist than to train a regular. However, he has made a valid point about the manpower gap, which I think is a central issue of concern. Will 30,000 reservists be enough, even if they can be recruited? According to figures from the Ministry of Defence, the present TA mobilisation rate is 40%. In other words, for every 100 TA soldiers on paper, 40 are deemed to be deployable at any one time. That suggests that if we are plugging a gap left by 20,000 regulars, we shall need 50,000 reservists, not 30,000.
In response to a letter sent to him a while ago by 25 Conservative Members, the Secretary of State suggested a mobilisation rate of 80%. He said:
“The total strength target for the Army Reserve in 2020 is 38,000, in order to deliver 30,000 trained reservists.
May I ask the Minister what research, what study, what evidence justifies the claim that the MOD’s budgets will double the mobilisation rate? It is one thing to recruit 30,000 reservists, but doubling the mobilisation rate as well would require an extremely large investment. Many of us would be interested to know what evidence supports the claim that the £1.8 billion that has been put aside will achieve both those objectives. It is a very, very tall order.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) raised the issue of the capability gap, and he was right to do so, because there is a fear that the Government plans risk creating such a gap. The Army reforms were put together before the strategic defence and security review, and since then a string of events have changed the international strategic dynamic. The nature of conflict is changing. Previously, it was thought of very much in binary terms—there would be one bloc against another bloc—but more fluid geopolitical forces are now at play, both state and non-state. War is becoming more asymmetrical, and we need well trained, agile, regular forces at high readiness if we are to meet the challenges that lie ahead. There is no disguising among the military their frustration about the fact that they could not have been more supportive to the French in Mali. The penny may have dropped on that side of the channel, but it has not yet dropped on this side.
I must ask the Minister whether 40 days’ training is really enough. Let us be absolutely clear about this: the Government’s plans represent a step-change in our approach. We are proposing to deploy whole units of reservists into the field. We have got to ask serious questions about this. Some would say, “Well, it happens in the US with the National Guard,” but it is, perhaps, not fully appreciated that the US National Guard has its own bases and its own equipment and training programmes. They take it very seriously in the US; they throw a lot of money at it, and even then the National Guard units are not infantry units. That is the interesting thing: the National Guard units are not infantry units, despite the investment the US puts into it.
Mr Brazier
My last visit to a National Guard infantry unit was in Kabul about a year and a half ago. It was doing an excellent security job, and it also had detached platoons along the Pakistani border. Some 60% of the American infantry is in the National Guard and 40% is in its regular army.
Mr Baron
All I would say to my hon. Friend is that there is a general view that the National Guard is very much focused on supporting roles, and the Americans treat their National Guard very differently from what I think is being proposed here. For example, I do not know of there being any details about separate training programmes, operational programmes or equipment programmes in the Government’s plans, which we have yet to see. All we are asking is to see those plans, because £1.8 billion may sound like a lot of money but it is spread over 10 years, and we must consider the scale of what we are asking—not just raising 30,000 reservists, or, to be more accurate, adding another 12,000 or 13,000 reservists, but doubling the mobilisation rate. That is a very big ask indeed.
What research has been undertaken to ensure that the money earmarked is sufficient to bring reservist units up to the same standard as regulars upon deployment? That is especially important given that it appears that human rights legislation will require equal training and equipment. That has not been raised much in the debate thus far, but human rights legislation is a concern in the sense that it is going to say, “Any troops put into the field, reservist or regular, have to have equal training and equipment.” I would be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that.
There is a concern that these plans are having a distorting effect on the ground. I come back to the fact that well-recruited battalions are being axed, including my own battalion, the 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, yet more poorly recruited, and therefore more expensive, battalions are being saved. Such a policy reinforces failure. Can the Minister justify the decision for 2RRF to replace on the list one of the more poorly recruited battalions when it was not on the original list of five battalions to be scrapped? We know, because we have seen it in writing from the MOD, that five battalions were originally due to be axed as they had poor recruitment figures. One of those was replaced. They had to go looking for another battalion and they fell upon 2RRF, which happened to be the best-recruited battalion in the British Army. Many fusiliers and their families in swathes of constituencies across the north and the midlands of England would like an answer to that question.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
Both 2RRF and the 1st Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers are very close to my heart, my dad having been a member of the Royal Northumberland Fusiliers before and during the second world war. I wonder what the MOD wants out of our defence forces. One of the battalions to be axed, 2RRF, is referred to as “Daring in all”, and it is said:
“Where ever the Fusiliers have deployed to they have proved capable of meeting every challenge with courage, determination and a will to win.”
That is on the Army website.
Mr Baron
That goes without saying. I sympathise with what the hon. Gentleman says. We have still not yet had a straightforward answer to a straightforward question: 2RRF was not in the original five; those five were chosen because of their poor recruitment and retention figures; one was removed and they had to go looking for another battalion to take its place; and they just happened to fall upon the best-recruited battalion in the British Army, and one with a very proud recruiting history. We recruit from across the major cities of Lancashire, Warwickshire and Northumberland—Newcastle, Coventry, Birmingham, Manchester—as well as from London, yet we were told we were having trouble with our recruitment, and that is simply not the case.
No wonder ex-military chiefs are critical. Many are pointing out that strategic thought has been abandoned at a time when many other countries, not necessarily friendly to the west, are increasing their defence budgets. They are asking all politicians to think again.
There comes a stage with any struggling project when common sense and evidence dictate a revaluation and I believe we have reached that point now. There is no doubt—let us be clear about this—that reservists are cheaper than regulars, but rising costs threaten the anticipated cost savings and raise the very real prospect of false economies, and that is before we consider the issue of capability gaps, yet the Government seem determined to plough on with this misguided plan and play down concerns.
That is evidenced today by this important debate having been downgraded, I believe, to a one-line Whip. That does not surprise me, but, all the same, I think it speaks volumes about the Government’s approach. This is a very important issue and the debate has been very well-subscribed to, yet we drop it down to a one-line Whip at a time when the Government have still not produced fully costed plans and there are very real concerns about whether 30,000 reservists can plug a gap left by 20,000 regulars.
I intend to test the will of the House on this motion. The time has come to say “Halt”—halt to the axing of the regular battalions until we know that the reservist plan is both viable and cost-effective; otherwise the taxpayer could bear the brunt of many false economies to come.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
I welcome this debate and I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) on securing it. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham).
I understand my hon. and gallant Friend’s loyal defence of his fine former regiment. As the 100th anniversary of the start of the first world war is almost upon us, it is time to remember six Lancashire and Warwickshire Fusiliers who won Victoria Crosses in that war. Sir John French made the famous remark that without the Territorial units available at the very beginning of the fighting we would have lost in France before the war had really begun.
The reality is that we have a good plan that is being unevenly implemented. America’s land forces are almost exactly split 50:50 between regulars and volunteer reserves. Canada has 44% regulars and Australia has 36% regulars; in all countries there are more reserve infantry than regulars. Uniquely, Britain has a target that is much less ambitious. It is broadly the case that a reservist costs a fifth of the price of a regular. All of us who are keen on defence would like more resources to be allocated to defence. Indeed, more than 20 years ago, I stepped down from my post in government as a Cabinet Parliamentary Private Secretary over that issue. However, the reality is that we have to work within these very difficult economic times, and the alternative to 30,000 reservists is not 20,000 regulars, but somewhere between 6,000 and 7,500, and that would be if we got rid of all the specialist medics, cyber-people and so on whom the Regular Army does not have.
I therefore strongly support this plan; I have seen the work of American and Australian reservists, and I am proud that 20% of the British division that captured southern Iraq was made up of reservists. However, I am concerned about some of the details of how the plan is being implemented. From the beginning, Ministers and the Chief of the General Staff have made a strong commitment to it. Ministers have secured the support of every employers’ organisation in the country. The CGS, starting with his own pitch to employers in his excellent article in the Financial Times, immediately spotted the governance issue by appointing, for the first time since the second world war, a TA two-star—a major-general—to play a pivotal role in it. The problems largely lie within the recruiting group. At a time when the proposition has improved immeasurably as a result of changes the Army Board is making, it is deeply depressing that this department is failing to deliver.
I have before me the monthly recruiting statistics for one unit—I will not disclose which, for obvious reasons. In the 12 months before the first push on TA recruiting in autumn 2011, the unit had enlisted between three and 12 people a month. The figures after that push are: 15 for November 2011, 21 for December 2011 and 19 for January 2012. Then, for a reason not understood by anyone, the recruiting group introduced its new system for medicals and common selection, without any market testing and without talking to units, and within three or four months the figures had dropped to one or two a month. That muddle was sorted—it had nothing to do with Capita. Second time around, the arrangements with Capita—I do not blame Capita—were introduced without any market testing or discussion with units. I am sure we have all dealt with cases of soldiers who have waited six or nine months with their documents repeatedly lost in the system.
Time is extremely short, so I want to suggest three things that the Government need to do turn this around. The units I talk to tell me again and again that there is more interest in joining the reserves and that the figures for the two groups that are not under control of the recruiting group—officer applicants and ex-regulars—are both improving. So, first, we need to get more of the control over the enlistment process back with the units again.
Mr Baron
May I suggest that this is a clear example of where the plan is driven by costs, rather than by strategic design? The cost for Capita to take on the recruitment was derived in large part by scaling down, if not selling up completely, local recruitment offices. So to start opening those offices, although a sensible proposition, would require additional cost if we are going to reverse that recruitment loss.
Mr Brazier
My hon. and gallant Friend makes an interesting point. That is not what I am arguing for, although I would strongly argue that it is ridiculous that the offices we still retain are open 9 am to 5 pm Monday to Friday instead of, for example, 9 am to 9 pm Tuesday to Thursday, which would allow the people there to do both jobs rather than only regulars. I am calling for more emphasis on the units. A temporary measure has been adopted in that area, which I suggest should be more permanent—it need not be expensive.
The second major change we need is to have a senior reservist officer in the recruiting group who is tasked with talking to units and who has real power in the way in which decisions in that area are made. We have done it at Land Command at the senior level, where two highly effective successive deputy commanders at Land in that position have worked well, and the improvements in the proposition have stemmed in no small part from that. The same needs to be done in the recruiting group.
The third change we need is on a relatively small scale, as seven or eight changes among the 400-odd decisions that had to be made to the location of the reserves are not right. Seven or eight really well-recruited sub-units have been wrongly selected for disbandment, including the best-recruited squadron in the yeomanry, which is going down to troop level, the best-recruited battery in the TA gunners and three or four well-recruited infantry sub-units.
I believe that this plan is achievable and it is moving us in the direction of the allies we fight alongside. It is a good plan; it just needs an improvement in implementation.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I would like to associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier), who sadly is no longer in the Chamber. Like him, I think that the whole plan for the Army Reserve is a good one. I know a great many serving reservists in my constituency who are excited and enthused about their role in a fully manned, 30,000-strong force that will ensure that they and others in future can make their contribution to the British Army. I note with interest that the south-west has been given an important role to play in this expansion, with the equivalent of 940 new posts being created for the region. However, like my hon. Friend, I have some concerns about the proposals as they stand.
Mr Baron
What is in no doubt is that one has great respect for the TA and, in many respects, wants the reserve plan to work. What one is arguing here is that, given the shortfalls in recruitment and the rising costs, surely it would be wise and prudent to stop the axing of the regular battalions until we know that the reserve plan is viable and cost-effective, because we in this House must not forget that defence is the first priority of Government.
Sarah Newton
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I have certainly never forgotten my personal responsibility or the fact that the defence of our nation is, collectively, our first responsibility in this Chamber, and I do not think for one moment that the Ministers on the Front Bench have forgotten their responsibilities either. We have not yet had an opportunity to hear the Minister respond to the debate or explain the current situation with regard to reservist recruitment. I have some concerns about recruitment, which is why I am speaking in this debate.
The Green Paper published in July contained some proposals that concern me. One, in particular, is for the reconfiguration of D company of 6th Battalion The Rifles. I believe that the proposal, as it stands, will frustrate the delivery of the Army Reserve plan in Cornwall, particularly the aim of maximising its local potential now and in years to come. D company is an important part of 6 Rifles. It is currently based and headquartered in Truro and Plymouth, which allows riflemen from across Cornwall to play a full role in the life of the regiment. The Green Paper proposes a reconfiguration that would see the majority of the company, including its headquarters, based in Plymouth by 2016 and one platoon housed at a new facility in Barnstable.
The move from Truro would cause real problems for serving riflemen living in west and central Cornwall and impact on future recruitment from those areas. Cornwall, as Members will know, is a large and rural county, and it can take a considerable time to travel to Plymouth. A rifleman taking the train from Falmouth in my constituency to an evening training session in Plymouth would face a four-hour round trip. Those travelling further west would face even longer journey times. Is it reasonable or, with a view to future recruitment, wise to add such an inconvenience to the many other sacrifices required of our reservists?
Mr Francois
I am afraid I really do not have time.
For some employers, there will be directly transferrable qualifications, skills and experience between reserve service and civilian employment, which can be very valuable. To come to the heart of this matter, I believe that as parliamentarians we should get behind the reserves and the Army to support them in their endeavours. It is true that there have been some administrative issues in the process—it is too bureaucratic, as some of my hon. Friends have pointed out. However, we are working with our recruiting partner, Capita, and the senior Army leadership to actively address those issues.
Mr Francois
I believe we can work through those issues, simplify the system and meet the objective. We should remember that the key target is 30,000 trained to phase two by 2018. We start with around 19,000 or so trained. That is not a cold start: we are two thirds of the way there, and we need to achieve the other third over four years. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) summed it up brilliantly: we need, on average, an additional 20 reservists from each parliamentary constituency across the country in order to do that. I believe we certainly can do that. As the Chief of the General Staff reminded us at a successful reception in Parliament for the Royal Engineers reserves only yesterday, that is a challenging proposition, but a workable one. I agree with CGS: we can do this; let us get on with it.
Mr Baron
I would like to add my warm welcome to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, in your new post.
I am afraid that I listened to my right hon. Friend the Minister, but found that key questions remained unanswered. In fact, I do not think he answered one of the questions I put to him. In a debate of this nature and importance, it is a shame that he is not willing to take an intervention from the Member who sponsored it. The bottom line is that questions such as “When did the plan change from back in 2011?” and “How much of the £1.8 billion has already been spent?”, questions about the impact assessment, about the costs involved in doubling the mobilisation rate and so on and so forth have not been answered in detail—all we have had is a sense of direction.
No one doubts for one moment the courage and service of past reservists or indeed of future reservists. One is not critical of that—
Mr Francois
I do not normally comment on leaked documents, and I am not about to start now. What I will say to my hon. Friend on the point of costs—in fairness, I had only about seven minutes—is that he knows that he wrote to the Secretary of State about this in detail and he knows that the Secretary of State replied to him in detail and rebutted every point that he made. For the benefit of the House, I will ensure that a copy of that letter is placed in the Library this afternoon.
Mr Baron
I am pleased that the Minister is going to do that because all the points made by the Secretary of State have, in turn, themselves been rebutted; many of them were based on false assumptions.
Given how little time is left, let me clarify this. One is not saying “Scrap the reservist plans”. In many respects, one wants them to work. What one is saying is that there comes a point in any project whereby if extra costs keep being thrown into a plan—because it is failing or because recruitment targets cannot be met or because costs are rising and TA numbers are at a low ebb or because of disorganisation—there comes a point when one has to ask “Is this project creating false economies, therefore costing the taxpayer dear?” The motion says simply that we should “delay” the axing of the regular battalions until we know that the reservist plan is both “viable and cost-effective”; otherwise, because of false economies and unrealistic expectations, the taxpayer could pay dearly. That is not unreasonable, but I am afraid that my right hon. Friend has failed to answer that central point in the motion. I thus have no hesitation whatever in pressing the motion and calling for a Division.
Question put.
Defence Reform Bill
John Baron Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hammond
I understand that the right hon. Gentleman desires to get to the bottom of this matter—as do we all—but he is right that there is little I can say. An inquiry by Dyfed-Powys police is under way, and when it is complete there will be a service inquiry into the events of last weekend. We will get to the bottom of what happened, and if there are systemic lessons to be learned, we will learn them. I give the right hon. Gentleman an undertaking that once the inquiry is complete, I will report to the House in an appropriate way.
The need to address the public sector structural deficit and the deficit in the defence budget has meant tough decisions and a relentless focus on squeezing more capability out of what remains the world’s fourth largest defence budget.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
My right hon. Friend talked, quite rightly, about the first duty of government, but he will be aware that some of us on the Government Benches are concerned that misguided Army reserve plans will throw up false economies and unacceptable capability gaps. Given that the present Territorial Army mobilisation rate is 40%, will he explain how we are trying to plug a gap from the loss of 20,000 regular troops with only 30,000 reservists? A 40% figure would suggest that we need nearer 50,000.
Mr Hammond
My hon. Friend’s view on this matter is well known. Two weeks ago the Government set out robust proposals in a White Paper, “Future Reserves 2020”. I am confident we will be able to deliver the force we have set out, and that that force will support the level of ambition for deployment set out in the strategic defence and security review 2010.
Reserve Forces
John Baron Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I suggest that the Government have still failed, however, to show that their plans represent value for money or are in the best interests of this country. The fact that further cash incentives have been announced today, that that ex-regular reservists will be on a better scale of pay than brigadiers and that TA numbers have been falling all point to doubt being cast on Government plans—and that is before we consider the issue of capability. Would it not be wise to halt the disbandment of the regular battalions and to stop the loss of 20,000 regular troops until we know for sure that these plans will work?
Mr Hammond
My hon. Friend returns to a familiar theme—he has suggested that course of action to me on many previous occasions. We are restructuring our armed forces to reflect the threat they will face in the future, as identified in the strategic defence and security review, and to respond to the fiscal challenges we must address if we are to have a stable platform for the proper defence of this country. I am afraid to say to my hon. Friend that although it might be tempting to wish that we had the resources to retain the regular Army at its historic strength while we recruit up to 30,000 trained reserves, we do not have that luxury. I think the Opposition would acknowledge—and have implicitly acknowledged—that reducing the size of the regular Army while increasing the size of the reserves is not without risk but is the best way to manage the resources we have to deliver the military output we require.
Armed Forces
John Baron Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Before the right hon. Gentleman moves on from veterans, does he think that it is important that we recognise the role played by British nuclear test veterans? Those veterans played a unique service role at the dawn of our nuclear weapons programme, but the country has never recognised them properly. We rank pretty close to the bottom of the international table of decency on this issue compared with other nuclear countries. Does he think that it is time to put that right?
Mr Murphy
The hon. Gentleman raises an important and long-running issue. All I would say is that I have met, and will continue to meet, representatives of those veterans, as do hon. Members on all sides of the House. I am sure that the Government are grappling with this matter. Under the previous Government a settlement offer was made, but my recollection and understanding is that that was blocked, seemingly by legal process and by lawyers. If that had not been the case, compensation might already have been provided. It is disappointing and regrettable that that has not happened.
An essential element of duty of care is how we support those who have served to get back into work post-service. Being in the armed forces often provides personnel with friendship, if not near-familial support. It can be disorientating and disconcerting when bonds with compatriots are suddenly broken and the norms of military life are lost.
Mr Murphy
My hon. Friend has been so strong in support of his Territorial regiment. When I was in Dudley, the campaign was so fierce that it was the one issue about which the local media wanted to talk. I congratulate him, and the Government will have to take into account the point he makes, not only about the high regard in which the unit is held in Dudley but the fact that it is recruited to full strength and is indeed over-subscribed. I look forward to the Minister responding to that specific point.
There must also be real protection for reservists. Current legislation says clearly that an employer has a duty to re-employ a returning reservist in the occupation they were employed in before their service and on the same terms and conditions. There is, however, no legislation to prevent an employer from discriminating against reservists in their hiring procedures on the grounds of their military affiliation. The Government should now consult employers specifically on new legislation to protect against discrimination in hiring reservists, which would need to be coupled with an obligation of transparency from reservists to declare their status.
Mr Baron
Is the shadow Secretary of State’s concern compounded by the fact that if we look at the present mobilisation rate of the existing TA, which stands at about 40%, we see that plugging the gap left by the loss of 20,000 regulars would require 50,000 reservists and not 30,000? Does the rundown of the TA forces in recent years, including the closure of TA centres and the fact that TA numbers are in decline, worry him?
Mr Murphy
The hon. Gentleman has raised these matters in Defence questions and other defence debates, and he will continue to do so. He sounds a clear warning to the Government and anyone who wishes to govern that in order to be successful, this policy—of boosting reservist numbers, engaging with employers and getting right the proportion of regulars to reservists and the relationship and integration of units and individuals—has to be done almost faultlessly. It is an enormous challenge to cut the Regular Army at this pace in the expectation that reservists will fill the gap, and I know that he will continue to raise that point.
Finally, the evidence shows that some reservists can suffer worse post-service psychological issues than regulars, in part because of the speed of the transition from military to civilian settings, so we should consider how we can increase access for reservists to military medical services in order to tackle the potential mental health problems that a minority—I stress, a minority—experience.
The Opposition will regularly disagree on many aspects of domestic and on some aspects of defence policy, and the decision to leave certain key capability gaps following the defence review will remain controversial and continue to provoke enormous debate, but Armed Forces day should be defined not by a political contest between parties, but where possible by consensus and celebration. The groups comprising our national defence—the high-skilled industrial work forces that make world-class equipment, the civilian government work force who do so much to support our forces, the charities whose unrivalled support and commitment to our armed forces personnel provide a lifeline when often another does not exist, and the families, who are sometimes forgotten, but who make sacrifices to support the actions of their family members on the front line—will each participate in this Saturday’s celebrations, but uppermost in our thoughts will be the hundreds lost in recent conflicts and the thousands in service overseas this weekend and unable to be at home and to join in the commemorations and celebrations. We remember them, we thank them and, this weekend, we celebrate them.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
We can disagree with nothing in the motion, but without wishing to break the consensual mood of the House, I think that this is too good an opportunity not to ask at least some questions of Ministers, in the hope that they will at least reflect on them and perhaps return later.
I am concerned, as are a number of Members on these Benches, that by keeping on cutting defence expenditure, we risk creating imbalances on a variety of fronts. Can it be right, for example, that the budgets of Departments dealing with health, welfare and international aid are being protected, if not expanded, as a percentage of Government expenditure? That puts disproportionate pressure on other Departments, such as Defence, when trying to save costs. I also wonder whether imbalances are being created in regard to our transatlantic relationship. Our defence capability is one of the key anchors of that relationship, but it is not a one-way ticket. There are obligations on both sides, including our own. If we keep shaving our defence capability, might we put elements of that relationship at risk?
I also suggest that we might be creating imbalances in other areas, such as our capability to meet our foreign policy objectives, whatever they might be, and defend our interests overseas. The House knows that I have not been supportive of our military interventions over the past decade, but let us put that to one side. There have been moments during those interventions when our resources have not matched our ambitions. It was not the fault of the troops on the ground, but in Iraq and Afghanistan in particular the necessary resources were lacking, and that had a knock-on effect on our ability to achieve our objectives.
I have other concerns but, as an ex-soldier, I shall focus on the Army. The plan to disband 20,000 regulars before knowing whether the plan to recruit 30,000 reservists to take their place will work is high risk, given that we do not know whether those reservists will be able to plug the gap from a capability point of view, or from a boots-on-the-ground point of view. I ask Ministers to ensure that that issue is centrally addressed in the forthcoming White Paper. There are key questions that need answering very soon, because redundancies are taking effect as we speak, and we do not know whether the plan will work.
There is a real danger that Government proposals will prove a false economy, in financial terms and in terms of military capability. Let us take cost savings as an example. I am conscious of the figure of £1.8 billion over 10 years, and more details will follow in the White Paper, but at the moment the Government are long on promise and short on costings and details. They have admitted in the Green Paper that it costs more to train reservists than regulars. The financial incentives being offered to regulars to join the reserves mean that they will be on a better scale of pay than a serving brigadier, if we include the £5,000 sign-up bonus, the bounty, the daily rate and so forth. There is also the question of civilian salaries being matched, although I am aware that the Government are considering capping an element of that. Again, we need to see the details. And all that is before we even consider the fact that the reservists will not be deployable in their first year.
I have already raised the question of the number of reservists that will be required. According to Ministry of Defence figures, the present Territorial Army mobilisation rate is 40%. If we apply that to the 20,000 regulars, we will need 50,000 reservists. I look forward to seeing the details of how that magic figure of 40% is going to be increased. It will take a concerted effort to achieve a mobilisation rate of much more than 40%, given that many people in the Army believe that we are not even hitting 40% at the moment.
There is also the question of the capability gap. In the 1980s, when many of us served, the TA did a very good job that basically involved reservists being transported out to Germany, digging a trench and waiting for the Soviet or Warsaw pact forces to arrive. Today, asymmetric warfare is becoming the norm. The skills base will become much higher, and our requirements will be much more demanding, yet I understand that the number of training days is being increased to 40 overall—an increase of only five days. I question that on the capability front, particularly when those forces are going to be mobilised as groups rather than as add-ons. That factor must be considered.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend share my fear that, with the scale of priorities we have at the moment, there is a danger that if we reduce the size of the Army much more, they will all be able to fit into the single first High Speed 2 train?
Mr Baron
Let us hope it is not a one-way ticket!
Let me finish with a concern some of us have about the potentially distorting effect on the ground. Excellent, well recruited battalions, such as the 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, are being axed, while more poorly recruited battalions are being saved. It is costing millions of pounds to keep over-strength battalions up to the mark. Such a policy is, in many respects, simply reinforcing failure.
In conclusion, I think this is a high-risk policy, and I ask Ministers to make sure that they cover the base very carefully. In my view, we need to see concrete evidence that the reservist plan will take effect and will work—before we let the regular battalions go. Here we are dealing with the defence of the realm, and this is happening when many countries not necessarily friendly to the west are arming and increasing their expenditure on defence. No one here can tell when or where the next threat will come from. I therefore ask Ministers to consider these points very carefully.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
There are three Members still to speak and we have only 15 minutes before the winding-up speeches.
Oral Answers to Questions
John Baron Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Robathan
The hon. Gentleman tempts me to reveal what has yet to be decided through the White Paper on reserves, which we confidently expect to be published before the summer recess. By that, I mean this summer recess, not next year.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The Government have promised to make up the difference between civilian and reservist rates of pay. What estimate has been made of the cost to the Government of that policy?
Mr Robathan
Already, reservists are paid the same or very much the same as regular service personnel. We are looking at all aspects of this subject. Again, I am afraid that my hon. Friend must wait for the White Paper on reserves. I am relatively confident that enough people will come forward to join the reserves and that we can look forward to having a vibrant reserve Army.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) has spoken eloquently at me on the matter for 30 years.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)
My priority remains the success of operations in Afghanistan. Beyond that, my priorities are to deliver the sustainable transformation of the Ministry of Defence, to maintain budgets in balance and to deliver equipment programmes so that our armed forces can be confident of being properly equipped and trained.
Mr Baron
A number of us on the Conservative Benches have reservations about the Government’s reservist policy, including its cost-effectiveness. Given that the MOD’s figures show that the Territorial Army’s mobilisation rate is 40%, which suggests we need 50,000 reservists not 30,000, and that rates of pay for ex-reservists will beat those of a serving brigadier, how confident is the Secretary of State that the £1.8 billion will cover the policy?
Mr Hammond
As in many areas, we have to work within the financial constraints presented to us, and we are currently tailoring a package of support for the reserve forces that can be accommodated within the £1.8 billion. I am quite confident that we can do so.
I would like to correct a possible misunderstanding. The top-up to rates of civilian pay has always been available in the system and our proposal is to limit that so that we make sure that we pay only people who have specialist skills what are sometimes very large amounts of money.
Better Defence Acquisition
John Baron Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hammond
They will see benefits at two levels and a healthier BAES as a result of this announcement. First, large defence contractors, perhaps counter-intuitively, do not relish the lack of a capable interlocutor in their trading partners. They would welcome our beefing up our capability and having higher-skilled, better-paid project managers on our side of the table, because that would drive genuine efficiencies into the process. At that level, we know that the companies will welcome this announcement. Secondly, on single-source procurement, I am confident that over time by incentivising cost-efficiency we will increase the exportability of British defence products, which are an incredibly important part of our high-tech manufacturing industries and help us to sustain jobs at the very top of the curve.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
These are early days and final decisions are yet to be made, but what indication can the Secretary of State give about the impact of this announcement on jobs at MOD Abbey Wood? Will he ensure that suitable provisions are in place for the employees who may be affected?
Mr Hammond
As my hon. Friend knows, the TUPE transfer of an enterprise does not imply any reduction in job numbers at the outset. It is true that a private sector partner taking on a work force of this nature will, over time, look to reconfigure the shape of the work force to make the business as efficient as possible. However, it will have to do that within the constraints of the TUPE regulations, normal employment law and the arrangements that are in place for negotiation with the trade unions.
Reservists
John Baron Excerpts(11 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) on securing the debate and on his excellent speech, which was born out of experience of commanding soldiers in the field.
When I was a young platoon commander in Berlin in 1984, we were told not to worry, because the quality of our troops and our kit would see us through. We knew very well that we could hold out only for so long, because quantity has a quality all of its own, as the German forces on the eastern front during the second world war found to their cost.
I mention that because I see similarly flawed thinking in the Government’s plans for 30,000 reservists somehow to plug the gap left by the loss of 20,000 regular troops. Let us be clear: this plan is designed to save money. It is not what the MOD would have wanted to do, as the CGS confirmed to the Defence Committee. The focus seems to be on the bottom line. The plan might work on paper, but a number of us severely doubt whether it will work on the ground.
I have three main concerns. First, could this be a false economy? The Green Paper admitted that it costs more to train reservists than regular soldiers, a fact confirmed by the Secretary of State during Defence questions. When we add in other factors, such as force-generation figures and the additional costs of matching a TA soldier’s civilian salary, there is a big question mark over how much this will all cost. To date, the Government have been coy about costings. We are promised a White Paper, but it has been too long in the coming. As several colleagues have said, none of that would matter were it not for the fact that five regular infantry battalions will be disbanded over the next 18 months; indeed, 20,000 regular troops have been given their marching orders. Pursuing such a policy before we are sure that the reservist plan will work is foolhardy and a high-risk strategy.
Secondly, I have concerns about whether 30,000 reservists could plug the capability gap. In my day—in the 1980s—TA reservists, gallant though they were, were essentially expected to ship out to Germany and wait for the Warsaw pact forces to come to them. Today, reservists are expected to have a much broader range of roles, but they are still expected to achieve that higher skill base with about 35 to 40 days’ training. We live in a world where challenging, asymmetrical warfare will become the norm.
My third concern is about boots on the ground. I doubt whether 30,000 reservists can plug the gap. The Government make great play of the fact that they have had many expressions of support from prospective employers, but expressions of support and boots on the ground are often two very different things. The latest MOD figures I have—they are fresh out of the MOD, and the Minister is welcome to challenge them if he so wishes—show that the establishment strength of the TA infantry is about 6,700 soldiers, but only 2,800 of them are actually eligible for mobilisation. That suggests an effective rate of about 40%. The MOD’s own figures—as I say, the Minister is welcome to challenge them if he so wishes—suggest that, in terms of plugging the gap left by 20,000 regulars, the Government’s estimate of 30,000 reservists is way off beam. A minimum of 50,000 reservists is more the ballpark figure.
We then need to look at further factors, which could throw even the figure of 50,000 into doubt. MOD figures confirm that the TA is losing infantry soldiers. Furthermore, as a number of colleagues have pointed out, the current economic climate means that small and medium-sized enterprises, in particular, will struggle to allow key employees to leave employment with them for extended periods without being compensated by the MOD. I am not convinced that that costing has been factored in.
For those three reasons—value for money, the capability deficit and boots on the ground—several of us have severe reservations about the Government’s plans. Meanwhile, however, those plans are having distorting effects on the ground. Excellent infantry battalions are being lost, and the 2nd Battalion Royal Regiment of Fusiliers is a case in point. It is one of the most experienced battalions in the British Army, having served in all the major conflicts during the past 15 years, including Kosovo and Bosnia. It remains one of the best recruited. By the MOD’s own admission, it was not one of the original five infantry battalions to be disbanded; instead, more poorly recruited battalions were meant to go. However, through interference, intervention or whatever we want to call it, it was decided to save a poorly recruited battalion north of the border. The MOD then had to go hunting for a battalion south of the border, and, for some reason, fell on 2RRF.
Mr Baron
I am conscious that I am running out of time, so I will proceed if I may.
In our contracting Army, one-battalion regiments stand less chance of survival. We were told a few years ago that the future rested with larger battalions. However, that distortion means the Government are spending millions of pounds unnecessarily supporting understrength battalions. Surely, the Minister can understand that it is more economical to keep well-recruited battalion families together than to spend millions of pounds trying to bring understrength battalions up to strength. Such a policy simply suggests we are reinforcing failure.
In short, these plans are fundamentally flawed. Parliament has not been made aware of the costings to justify their execution, despite the fact that five regular infantry battalions have already been given their marching orders. I strongly suggest to the Minister that it would be wiser to see whether the plans work first, before losing 20,000 regular troops.
There is one final reason why the Government’s policy is high risk. Our armed forces are being reduced at a time when many countries, which are not necessarily friendly to the west, are increasing their expenditure. No one can tell where the next threat will come from. We must always remember that the first duty of the Government is defence of the realm.
Andrew Selous
I accept that there has been a change in the culture, and part of the Government’s job will be to give the Army Reserve a clear direction and mandate. We have already received commitments about training and equipment. Only today, the Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Peter Wall, said in an article in The Daily Telegraph that there would need to be a “cultural reset” among employers. That is right, and my hon. Friend’s point is valid.
We need not look far to find other countries that have already achieved what the Government want to achieve. The reserve forces of our near neighbour Ireland are already larger as a proportion of the working population than the total that the Government want to achieve here. The same thing has already been done in the United States and other countries. It is by no means unachievable. Of course, what is envisaged will be easier for larger companies; but we need only 0.15% of the younger working age population—we are not talking about taking the crucial foreman of a small engineering business away on a six-month tour of duty, so that the firm will collapse. We will be able to manage things by taking the employees we need from larger companies, and from among part-time and seasonal workers and those whose civilian work fits their Reserve Army commitments.
Mr Baron
One of our key concerns is that, although enough money thrown at the situation will get 30,000 reservists, the MOD’s figures suggest a 40% effective rate when it comes to established strength and ability to mobilise. On those MOD figures, it is not 30,000 but a minimum of 50,000 reservists that are needed—and then there are additional concerns.
Andrew Selous
My hon. Friend makes a good point, in that we must make sure that the 30,000 we seek are battle ready and deployable. That is a fair point and my hon. Friend is right to make it.
In the late 1980s, there was the National Employers Liaison Committee, but we will need a similar body to do the work of cultural reset that the Chief of the General Staff has suggested. We need a band of patriotic employers. Perhaps the idea of something on the letterhead would be useful, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) suggested.
The Army Reserve plays a crucial role as a bridge between the civilian and military populations, two communities that can become very separate. When I was a Territorial soldier the great phrase that was used was “one Army”. There should not be a distinction between regular soldiers and part-time soldiers who are somehow less professional. We need to re-establish the ethos of one Army, with both components working together and integral to the whole. Several hon. Members have already pointed out that in Afghanistan up to 10% of troops on the ground have been provided by the Territorial Army; and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) mentioned a figure of up to 14% for Iraq.
As we know, the Government are putting £1.8 billion towards the training and equipment that the reserve forces will need. The increase in training from 35 to 40 days a year will come from weekend and evening commitments, and so should not be a burden on employers.
Mr Robathan
I am sorry, but I do not have time to give way.
We have planned that, over time, reservists will have access to exactly the same equipment for training that is currently used by regulars. There will be opportunities for deployment, as we have mentioned already, but there will also be opportunities for shorter periods of deployed service commitment for those in some specialist roles, and reserves will also routinely fill roles that historically were the preserve of the regulars.
Officers and soldiers will also have command appointments, which have not always been available, and my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury has been bending my ear about that for many, many years—since way before 2010. We need the Government and society to get behind this process. The skills and experience gained by reservists will be of considerable value to civilian employers, as has been mentioned, making the proposition all the more attractive.
We need to get behind the new reserves. NEAB, which is the National Employer Advisory Board, and SaBRE, which is Support for Britain’s Reservists and Employers, although I do not know where the “a” in SaBRE came from, are working on these issues, and we need to continue that work. Soon we will publish the White Paper that will set out a number of measures to encourage that process, and the collaboration with employers is absolutely vital. I take the point that it is not an easy answer, but we are determined to get this process right.
Of course, collaboration needs to be tailored to fit different types and sizes of employers. I was in Keighley last week, visiting Snugpak, which had a SaBRE commendation signed by the Secretary of State for Defence. Snugpak is a medium-sized enterprise rather than a small one, which incidentally produces some very decent kit if anyone wants insulation for their camping trips. While I was there, I spoke to a reservist who was indeed supported by his employer. However, we need to take this process further.
Although it is still in its early stages, we are confident that we can get a more streamlined recruiting process, in conjunction with Capita. I know that Capita has been slightly criticised in one or two scurrilous magazines such as Private Eye, but we believe that we are getting there and Capita should deliver an acceleration in enlistments during the next few years. If my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham, who was somewhat sceptical about that, wishes to review the recruiting process, we would be very happy to facilitate that. Key changes that we are introducing include: a national recruiting centre administering all applications to a common process; a more imaginative approach to marketing; and a fully resourced assessment process for the reserves.
Mr Robathan
I am sorry but I really do not have time to give way.
We remain confident that our proposition, in addition to being the right thing to do, will deliver value to the taxpayer. The independent commissioner for reserves concluded that reserves are significantly cheaper to maintain than regulars, and that they are no more expensive than regulars even when we take into account the costs on operations. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), who just tried to intervene, I will say that part-timers are inevitably cheaper than full-timers.
As I have said, we need a change in the mindset regarding reserves, and a change in the attitude towards them. I absolutely believe that this policy is the right thing to do. It is not that we are keen to reduce the regular Army, but it is ridiculous to have a trained reserve of 19,000 for a country of our size; that is a ridiculously small number. We can do better than that—using reserves has huge social benefits—and we shall do better than that. Rather than admire the problems that we faced on inheriting an overblown defence budget in 2010, this Government have taken the necessary decisions to deliver a credible future Army which is fit for the challenges of the 21st century.
Just before I sit down, may I also say that my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) and I served in another English regiment, and not just in the Fusiliers? On St George’s day, we used to have a service, quite a good lunch as I recall and then the rest of the day off.
Oral Answers to Questions
John Baron Excerpts(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Francois
I am aware of the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises. Our instinct is to try and garner employer support voluntarily, as it were, but we are aware of the issue and intend to address it in our response in the White Paper.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I suggest that expressions of support and troops and boots on the ground are two different things. Given the widespread concerns about defence cuts and force generation factors, how confident is the Minister that the plan to plug the gap left by the loss of 20,000 regular troops will not prove to be a false economy?
Mr Francois
As I think I have already said, I am confident that we can do this, based not least on my own experience and that of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), who, as my hon. Friend will know, was a Territorial Army officer in the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers—the same regiment to which he belonged.
Army Basing Plan
John Baron Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hammond
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces, who has responsibility for such matters, will be very happy to meet my hon. Friend to talk about those issues.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Having served in Germany twice, I know that this is an important announcement. In welcoming the basing plan, I suggest to the Secretary of State that its success will be contingent in part on the ability of 30,000 royal reservists to plug the gap left by the loss of 20,000 regular troops. Given that some of us have concerns about the cost and recruitment assumptions underlying the reservist plan, is it the Secretary of State’s intention to publish or keep the House regularly updated on the costs of implementing it?
Mr Hammond
That is slightly off the beam of the regular Army basing announcement. It is certainly my intention, once the recruiting campaign for reserves gets under way this year, to publish routinely—I think quarterly would be most appropriate—the recruiting data for the reserves. My hon. Friend is right that success in delivering our reserves programme is a crucial part of the Army 2020 plan. I will reflect on his suggestion that the cost of the reserve programme should be published, although I am not so sure it will be that easy to identify and isolate it.