Defence Reform

Debate between Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton and Bob Stewart

Tuesday 26th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

I declare an interest as a member of the Territorial Army.

I listened with interest to the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who has just left his place. I thought he was a perfectly competent Defence Minister, although not quite as competent as the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan). Having listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, I am clear about several matters being pursued by the Government that he does not support, but, given his acceptance that there is a deficit and that it needs to be addressed, I am less clear about what exactly the Labour party would do to address it. I hope that in her winding-up speech the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) will explain to the House exactly what the Labour party would do to deal with the deficit. Without that explanation, I fear that many of its claims will look rather hollow.

I want to focus on the plan for an integrated Army by 2020. I congratulate General Carter on his review. Frankly, he was handed a poisoned chalice, but he has managed to deliver an optimal military solution from very clear terms of reference. I want to be equally controversial by saying that sometimes arguments in the House about which regiments should be saved leave me slightly cold. I understand the historic significance of many regiments, and it is right that hon. Members should defend those regiments, but ultimately, if I were a senior officer, I would be holding my head in my hands, because, following this review, politicians are now tinkering with it and seeking to influence the decision for reasons based on political grounds, rather than optimal military grounds. It is not beyond the wit of the British Army to save various regimental cap badges, so I think that my hon. Friends should relax—I am sure that these cap badges will be saved. Instead, we must focus on the optimal military solution.

The integrated Army 2020 proposition, the skeleton of which was unveiled earlier this month at the Royal United Services Institute land warfare conference, is a neat solution to dealing with a period of strategic uncertainty at a time of economic austerity, and inevitably it involves smaller land forces. Indeed, it proposes a reduction in the regular force from 102,000 to 82,000, countered by an increase in the trained reserve forces to about 30,000, with an additional 8,000 under training. It aims to deliver an Army designed to meet the capability, aspirations and commitments of the strategic defence and security review 2010.

Equally, however, the proposal has to deliver contingent capabilities and meet the requirements of the Government’s “Building Stability Overseas Strategy”, published last year. Although I am confident that General Carter’s proposals provide an optimal military solution for the requirements of the SDSR, some cross-Government work is clearly still required to flesh out how this upstream engagement in fragile states will be delivered in order to meet the requirements of the overseas stability strategy. It is here, I believe, that the unique specialist skills that so many members of the reserve forces possess should be utilised. As I understand it, the proposed force structure aims to hold defence capabilities at different levels of readiness based on a balanced mix of reaction and adaptable forces. It is key, however, that to deliver this desired outcome, the Army must be able predictably to integrate its regular and reserve components, with the reserves likely to be required routinely to undertake roles such as providing for the UN battalion in Cyprus, as it has done sporadically in the past.

At the heart of the plan is a progressive move from a reserve force that provides individual augmentees for current operations to one that delivers a scalable, adaptable response by individuals to formed sub-units. This aspiration would certainly be welcomed by the TA, but will be welcomed by the Regular Army only if the TA can be relied upon to deliver. For the individual reservists, this calls for sustained commitment to regular training attendance and predictable periodic mobilisation. This is undoubtedly an ambitious target, but it can be achieved. It is important to realise, however, that there must be not only the military will to achieve it but significant political will and leadership, if the structure and reliance on reserves is to work.

[Bob Stewart]

There is one other requirement: money for the reserves to train properly. Otherwise, they cannot attain the same level as the regular forces.

[Mark Lancaster]

I agree. Indeed, I would argue that ambition without funding is simply hallucination, which is why I am delighted that £1.2 billion has been allocated for this upskilling of the reserves.

I have two concerns about the upskilling, however. First, I want to add to the comment from my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier). When it comes to the reserve units, we must be careful, because a larger TA might actually result in a smaller footprint. We must be careful about which TA units we close, simply because, as I know from my experience as an officer commanding a squadron, we cannot simply move personnel and expect them to move units and travel some 20 miles to continue training.

Equally, I am convinced that there must be a compulsion to train. At the moment, we simply have a gentlemen’s agreement to turn up and train with the TA. Without that compulsion, I fear that the reserves cannot fulfil the commitment that they are being asked to make. We are fortunate that section 22 in part III of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 already allows for compulsory training, but we need to look carefully at how to implement it, so that we do not end up offending employers, who might then not wish to allow their reservists to go and train. It is a very difficult circle to square. Equally, we need to look at TA regulations to ensure that bounty, a tax-free payment for people who are fit for role, can be adjusted to ensure that such compulsion can be taken into account.

In my last 27 seconds, I would like to highlight to hon. Members that tomorrow is “wear your uniform to work” day, which is a celebration of our reserve forces, with some 1,900 of them currently being mobilised in support of the Olympics and some 700 on operations in Afghanistan. I hope that hon. Members will join me in celebrating their reservists, although they do not have to go as far as I will by wearing my uniform tomorrow.

Home Affairs and Justice

Debate between Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton and Bob Stewart

Thursday 10th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to be able to contribute to the debate, and I start by mentioning some comments that the Home Secretary made. I particularly welcome the Crime and Courts Bill, with its potential impact on border security, and especially serious organised crime. I have campaigned in the House for a couple of years to ban the drug khat and, as it now looks as if the sale and importation of khat has been linked to serious organised crime, I hope that the Bill will have a direct impact on that. Equally, I welcome the establishment of the National Crime Agency, which must be a step in the right direction. However, I am sure that the key there will be a strong working relationship between the NCA and other agencies.

It is perfectly reasonable for the shadow Home Secretary to stand and oppose many of the Government’s cuts; that is her choice. But I do worry that there now seems to be a pattern whereby the Opposition will go to each of the pressure groups opposing the proposals for cuts, without any explanation of how the funding deficit will be managed. We saw that today, when we seem to have established at least a £1 billion difference between the funding arrangements, with no proper explanation of whether that will equate to a rise in taxes, should the Labour Opposition become a Government again, or where perhaps cuts will come in other areas. Until that gap is bridged, it is very hard to take seriously what is being said. My constituents are not stupid, and I think over time they will realise that, as the Labour party seems to oppose everything and propose very little in return, there is something of a credibility gap.

I will not keep the House long. I apologise for focusing on the families and children Bill. I appreciate that with six days to debate the Queen’s Speech, it is for the Opposition to choose the subjects debated, and time will always be a constraint, but today seems the most opportune time to talk about the Bill. I want to focus my comments on an area that, I hope, is not contentious across the House—the changes to the adoption system. I am pleased that the Government have been to date very clear in their aims. They have said that they would like to reduce the number of adoptions that are delayed in order to achieve a “perfect”, or near, ethnic match between adoptive parents and the adoptive child; to see swifter use of a national adoption register in order to find the right adopters for a child wherever they might live; to encourage all local authorities to seek to place children with their potential adopters in anticipation of the court’s placement order; and radically to speed up the adopter assessment process, so that two months are spent in training and information gathering—a pre-qualification phase—followed by four months of full assessment; to introduce a fast-track process for those who have adopted before or who are foster carers wanting to adopt a child in their care; and finally, to develop the concept of a national gateway to adoption as a consistent source of advice and information for those thinking about adoption.

I, and I sense the whole House, will support all those aspirations. I am confident that the families and children Bill will give hope to the 4,000-plus children in care who are waiting to be adopted by a loving family. It proves that we are not just paying lip service, but acting with due urgency and care to overhaul what is at times a lengthy and damaging process.

[Bob Stewart]

It strikes me that people who are slightly older, sometimes those in their early 40s, who want to adopt a child are debarred from doing so. I want legislation to raise the age limit—perhaps even to an age as great as my own.

Armed Forces Personnel

Debate between Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton and Bob Stewart

Thursday 10th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Bob Stewart]

I entirely agree, and I am sure that the Minister does as well. We must get that under control. Someone told me—again, the Minister probably has the figures at his fingertips—that the Army has some 1,700 lieutenant-colonels. If that is the case, they could man three battalions, and we have only 38 of those.

I will not go into the same details about the Royal Air Force, but the principle is the same: it remains quite top-heavy. I know that the Government intend to have a crack at reducing the problem. What we want in our armed forces are people coming in at the bottom—that is, people who actually do the business, rather than those who are in the background sitting behind desks.

[Mark Lancaster]

My hon. Friend is advancing a powerful argument, with which I agree. Does he believe that the only solution to the problem is for us to slow down the career progression of officers in the Army?

[Bob Stewart]

That is the dilemma. We want to encourage people to stay in the Army; we want to retain the experience of senior officers; and, in the event of something that we may not care to mention—a general war—we will require those officers to expand the Army, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury suggested.

As for the basing of our troops, I am still worried about where they will go when they come back from Germany, if we have to get them all out by 2020. The details of how many will go to which places are yet to be planned. I am particularly concerned about where those extra troops will be trained, because the training areas already seem to be mightily over-booked. Cost is another issue. Converting Kinloss, which is currently an RAF station, to enable it to house, say, an Army battalion, will not be simply a case of “All out, one in”. We should also ask where the families will go. As was said earlier, it would be a good idea to try to enable them to live further away, but there will be a problem with morale when there is a deployment and wives and children are separate from the main unit.

Finally, let me say a little about Afghanistan. I have heard an increasing number of complaints—some as recently as this week—about the suggestion that a quota of reservists are going there while regulars are being left behind. That quota, which may not be formal, is nevertheless causing some resentment. I ask the Minister to check on that. It costs more to deploy reservists; as regulars are already being paid for, they do not cost as much.

I am very concerned about reports this week that the United States will be withdrawing from Helmand. That has manpower implications. The gains from 2007 onwards might be in jeopardy, and who will take up the slack? It must not be us. We have three years to go before we are formally committed to withdraw from operations in Helmand and Afghanistan generally, although we will stay there in a training role. If the Americans withdraw, the commander in Helmand will have fewer manoeuvre units and fewer available reserves. I do not want us to reoccupy bases we have occupied previously, such as Sangin, Musa Qala and Now Zad.

It is also crucial that we maintain our own security as we withdraw. I know the Minister realises that; I am not trying to teach him to suck eggs. Withdrawing from an operational theatre is very complicated, however. It is often much easier to go in than to come out, and that can be very dangerous. We do not want to take pointless casualties, and we must not repeat the mistake of 2006, when we allowed our troops to be put into isolated locations unsupported. When we are withdrawing, we must not leave a thin line at the front and thin out from there. We must withdraw properly. I will not talk in detail about the tactics, but we must not leave our troops isolated and in a precarious situation as we withdraw.

I shall conclude now, but I should first apologise to the House as I must beg leave to be absent from shortly onwards as there is a constituency event I must attend. I do not wish to leave the Chamber, but once I have done the decent thing by listening to the next speech, I would like to be allowed to depart. Please forgive me, colleagues.