Defence Reforms

Richard Drax Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a pleasure to see you in your place. I support the comments of my colleagues.

I commend my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) for his persistence in raising these questions. As has been said, the Government plan to more than double the size of the TA to 38,000. That figure has not been used yet, but as I understand it, that is the target figure, of which 30,000 will be potentially on call. At the same time the number of regulars will be reduced by 20,000. The motion

“notes concerns”

about whether these reforms

“will deliver either the anticipated cost savings or defence capability”.

My sympathies are with the members of the Government Front-Bench team, whom I know reasonably well after three years here. I know that none of them wishes to be in this position.

During my nine years in the Army, I worked alongside many reservists. They were capable, professional and dedicated. Their magnificent contribution to many recent operations from Afghanistan to Iraq to Libya leaves us in no doubt of their valour or significance. However, reservists have other priorities in their lives, and that is even more pertinent in today’s tough and competitive world. For these reasons and others, their numbers must be kept to a sensible and manageable proportion of the whole. No military commander I have spoken to, serving or retired, agrees that the increase in the proportion of reservists to regulars is correct. Today’s conflicts require well trained, professional, regular troops to hit the ground running, so if we are to cut our armed services, the proportion of regulars to reservists must be higher, not lower.

Twenty thousand fully trained and experienced regulars are leaving the Army, creating what I and many other campaigners and commentators would consider a yawning capability gap. The Government argue that they inherited a multibillion pound hole in the defence budget, which was unsustainable. Although I accept that premise, I do not agree with the conclusion that we should cut the armed services to the extent that we are planning, and certainly not before plan B has proved sustainable.

To me, this is all about priorities. We are happy to strike a moral pose and devote many billions of pounds to overseas aid, much of which is unaccountable, while starving of cash the very organisations that defend our country. I have no problem with giving money to overseas aid, but it should be better targeted, and I think that a statutory target is incorrect. Furthermore, projects such as HS2, which is very controversial, will cost billions of pounds, and, dare I say it, there is the old elephant in the room, the EU. Charity starts at home, especially in austere times.

It is a sobering thought that at the height of the troubles in Northern Ireland we had nearly 30,500 troops serving there. In my day it took about six men to put one man in the field. Working on that basis, if—God forbids it ever happens again—Northern Ireland flares up, we would be pushed to meet that commitment, let alone retake the Falklands if Argentina were ever in a position to launch an attack.

Ministers tell us that this reduction is

“to make best use of the resources available”

and to

“harness better the talents of the country”.

It sounds good, but does it deliver? According to a leaked document from the MOD, it does not. I would be grateful if Ministers would confirm what percentage of GDP is spent on our armed forces. I am told that it is now below 2%, the minimum that our membership of NATO demands. In my day, it was above 5% —money that was needed not only to maintain our commitment to NATO, but for the defence of our dependants and of course to safeguard the realm, which is the most solemn duty of this House.

Yet today more redundancies loom and more reliance will be placed on reservists, who are not rallying to the MOD’s bugle call to the extent that we were led to expect. Those who do respond will receive 40 training days a year. Will that be enough to give a reservist confidence when his or her boots hit the ground? Will the already overstretched training facilities be able to cope with the increase in demand? Will the new arrangements be to the reservist’s detriment? As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay has said, the statistics show that reservists are 50% more likely to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder than their regular counterparts.

I question whether the £1.8 billion investment over the next 10 years will be adequate. The Government’s target is a total Army Reserve strength of 38,000 by 2020, but it is reckoned that this will give us 30,000 trained reservists. I question whether that will be achievable, and certainly the statistics we have heard today indicate that it probably will not be.

As a humble Back Bencher, I urge the Government to stop dismembering our armed services before it is too late and at least ensure that plan B is in place and working.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clappison]

I hope that the Minister has heard my hon. Friend. If I may, I would put it even more strongly. My hon. Friend mentioned hope. I would say to the Minister that, if there is even an element of doubt about the recruitment of reservists, the Government should put these plans on hold and look again at the whole question of disbanding the regular battalions. In saying that, let me make it absolutely clear that I mean no disrespect at all to the excellent individuals who serve in our Territorial Army and to whom we owe the deepest debt of gratitude, not least for the way in which they have performed in Afghanistan.

This is simply a question of whether the implementation of the plans as they stand will give us the capability that we require. I very much hope that it will not be part of the Government’s thinking or policy to say, “Here we have a plan which should meet our capability needs, and will also save us costs, but even if it doesn’t meet our capability needs we will go ahead with it none the less.” That is not a position in which a Conservative-led Government should find themselves, and I am sure that they will not under the watchful custodianship of my right hon. Friend the Minister.

Let me say a few words about our Navy, which is also encompassed by the defence reforms. The previous Government’s strategic defence review in the late 1990s concluded that Britain required a fleet of 32 surface ships, destroyers and frigates, in order to fulfil its capability needs. Now we have a fleet of 19 surface ships in the form of frigates and destroyers. I know that these ships have greater capability than ever before, but I would be surprised if they had acquired a capability proportionate to the loss of numbers that has been experienced since the defence review in the late 1990s. Even as an amateur strategist, I can understand that, as the noble Lord West, a former Sea Lord, has helpfully pointed out, a ship can only be in one place at one time. I doubt that there are fewer threats in the world today than there were in the late 1990s and that the world has become a much safer place since the turn of the last century. While other nations are responding to the world as it is by increasing the number and capability of their surface fleet, we are seeing a diminution in ours.

The hon. Member for Colchester mentioned Waterloo. Helpfully, next Monday is Trafalgar day, which used to be celebrated nationally and is still celebrated in our Navy. I was interested to find out how many warships the British Navy had at the time of the battle of Trafalgar, and my rather amateur research unearthed a figure of 950 warships in 1805, so we may not have had a very big Army, as the hon. Gentleman said, but we certainly had a very good Navy.

[Richard Drax]

Bearing in mind that 85% of our trade comes by sea, would it not be foolish if we did not have the Royal Navy to protect, not least, our trade routes? My hon. Friend may recall that one man tried to cut us off before, not too long ago.

[Mr Clappison]

My hon. Friend is right. Who knows what we may be called on to deal with through our Royal Navy? At the time of the Falklands conflict we had 60 frigates and destroyers. Recently our Navy played a very important role in the conflict in Libya. Four of the ships that we used in that conflict have since been decommissioned or are on their way to being decommissioned. Let me put this into further context by saying that, on the eve of the second world war, a conflict that tells us all we need to know about the need for military preparedness, Britain had 272 surface warships and the largest Navy in the world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Drax]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I cannot. I will keep going for the last few seconds of my time.

Obviously, not every regiment can last for ever, but tradition is a priceless, incorporeal thing that takes centuries to build and yet can be destroyed in an instant. We must again remember Admiral Cunningham, who was criticised for the heavy losses his Navy ships suffered when they were exposed to German air assault as he protected the Army. He said:

“It takes three years to build a ship, but it takes three centuries to build a tradition.”

The tradition of our Regular Army is a real thing that we still have in this country. The reforms seek to replace that with a continental-style citizen army, and to do so stealthily without properly saying so. It may take only 40 days of a year to train a reservist, but we may lose centuries of tradition if the reforms are implemented in the wrong way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

In the Royal Navy. That’s our side, Bob.

I also say to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) that I have not read his paper on carriers, which I think was published by the Royal United Services Institute, but having heard his speech today, I promise him that I will.

I am glad to have the opportunity to respond for the Government in this important debate, and I would like to remind the House why we are making these changes. On 3 July, we published the White Paper, “Reserves in the Future Force 2020: Valuable and Valued”, setting out our vision for the reserve forces and the detail of how we would make reserve service more attractive. It also confirmed our intention to change the name of the Territorial Army to the Army Reserve to better reflect their future role.

With this new approach, the UK is not breaking entirely new ground. In fact, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier), who arguably knows more about the reserves than the rest of the House put together, pointed out, it will bring us into line with our principal allies and partners, who currently rely more heavily on reserves than we do. Currently, reserves represent about 17% of our total armed forces, and that is scheduled to rise to 25% under our proposals. This compares to 36% in Australia, 51% in Canada—that is the figure I have—and 55% in the US.

Since the original Haldane reforms in the last century, the reserves have always made an essential contribution to national security. In world war two, eight of the 13 infantry divisions that went out in the British expeditionary force were from the Territorial Army. That shows the scale of the contribution it has made historically.

[Richard Drax]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Francois]

I will take my hon. Friend’s intervention, but I am told that I must finish by 3 pm, so his might have to be the only one.

[Richard Drax]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Although the reserves were bigger in those days, more resources were put into them. The big question is whether we will have sufficient resources to put into an increasing number of reserves. My fear is that we will not and that the regulars will suffer as a consequence.

[Mr Francois]

I understand my hon. Friend’s question. I believe that we will—we are devoting £1.8 billion to our programme of reserve expansion, which is a significant amount, given all the challenges in the budget.

Reservists have made a significant contribution to recent operations in Iraq and Afghanistan as well, with in excess of 25,000 mobilised for tours on Operations Telic and Herrick. Just as we were told earlier that the United States National Guard takes its responsibilities seriously and is taken seriously, I would respectfully suggest that our 25,000 men and women who served in those theatres were taking their responsibilities pretty seriously as well. Between them, those reservists have gained more than 70 gallantry awards in those campaigns. I would also humbly remind the House that 24 reservists made the ultimate sacrifice in combat during those operations.

We are establishing greater links with the national health service to enhance our medical units. Many of the lessons learned in combat, including at Camp Bastion—for instance, in treating haemorrhaging and bleeding—have now been fed back into the NHS. We are also setting up a new cyber-reserve unit—although I can scotch the rumour this afternoon that it has anything to do with attacking 38 Degrees. It is true that reserves can in some cases be more expensive than regular forces when deployed on operations, but they are significantly cheaper when held as a contingency.