|
Issue of the day: Defence reforms
Party spokesmen debate the future of the armed forces.
Labour: Defence secretary Geoff Hoon
Changes I have announced to the structure of the Army are only one part of a much larger programme of reform affecting all the armed services and civilians in the Ministry of Defence. The December 2003 White Paper, Delivering Security in a Changing World, provided an updated assessment of the security environment. It outlined new, more pronounced threats and challenges presented by international terrorism, proliferation of WMD, and failed and failing states.
Key to meeting these challenges is the effective restructuring of our armed forces. We must be able to exploit successfully the benefits to be derived from advances in technology, effects-based planning and network-enabled capability. But, most importantly, we must also ensure that our greatest asset – our sailors, soldiers and air personnel – work in the right structures to best enable them to meet today’s challenges head-on.
These are new capabilities; they are not cuts. They are being backed up by an impressive re-equipment programme, introducing new communications equipment, enhanced intelligence-collection assets, modern vehicles such as the Panther armoured reconnaissance vehicle, and looking further ahead, the ambitious FRES armoured fighting vehicle programme, which will modernise the armoured vehicle fleet and form the basis of the medium-weight capability.
These enhancements will directly improve the ability of the Army to deploy, support and sustain itself on the range of operations that we envisage. That can only be achieved as a result of the planned reduction by four in the number of infantry battalions, which will release around 2,400 posts for redeployment across the force structure.
I have never failed to be impressed by the Army's professionalism, courage, and determination to succeed. It is a body of men and women of whom the nation is justifiably very proud. I am convinced – and so is the Army – that the transformation that we have set in hand is the right course for the future. The new structure will deliver an Army fit for the challenge of the 21st century. It will preserve the vital traditions and ethos, and it will improve the lives of soldiers and their families.
The text is an edited version of the defence secretary's Commons statement delivered on December 16, 2004.
Conservatives: Shadow defence secretary Nicholas Soames
Whichever way you look at it, the British Army is getting smaller. No euphemism deployed by the government’s spin machine can do anything to conceal it. Terms like modernisation, restructuring, rebalancing or redistribution cannot obscure the actual cuts that will reduce the current trained establishment of the Army from the Strategic Defence Review target of 108,500, to a new target of 102,000 by 2008.
Some of the government’s measures are sensible. Few of the critics of the government’s proposals for cutting the Army’s infantry requirements question the need to end the Arms Plot – the routine rotation of regiments around bases at home and abroad. We all accept that this is disruptive to families, to the operational needs of the Army, and is bad for retention.
Yet the secretary of state is attempting to use the need to remove the Arms Plot to justify cuts in infantry manpower. It will effectively mean the end of the proud regimental traditions and organisation of some 19 infantry battalion
The world has never been more dangerous and unpredictable since the end of the Cold War. Looming over the entire issue of international terrorism is a trend toward the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. As a result, stakes in the war against international terrorism are increasing, while margins for error are diminishing. Britain must be prepared for the wholly unexpected, as well as being able to deal with conventional military threats.
That is why a Conservative government will keep the infantry battalions and Type 23 frigates that Labour wants to cut, and why we will spend £2.7 billion more than Labour on frontline defence between now and 2007.
Liberal Democrats: Defence spokesman Paul Keetch
There is no doubt that to achieve a strong, fast and effective army, capable of fighting simultaneous and diverse operations at distance, reform is required. We have seen some welcome moves towards greater force flexibility and capability, including the creation of a new light brigade, the acquisition and development of advanced weaponry and communications systems and, in the infantry, a reallocation of support personnel from divisional to brigade level. The creation of a tri-service ranger unit dedicated to Special Forces will complement these moves, although the precise implications of the plan are at present unclear.
The government has, of course, also proposed a major re-shaping of the regimental system, which will involve the disbanding of four regular battalions, and the amalgamation of six, centuries-old regiments of Scotland into one new Scottish regiment. Over 1,500 personnel will be lost; indeed, 400 soldiers from throughout the Army will soon be made redundant – predominantly, as I understand it, those with over 12 years’ service, many of whom will have served in Iraq.
These proposals are profoundly unwise. The Scottish reforms will sweep away centuries of tradition and esprit de corps, and could rupture deep-rooted connections between regiments and their communities. As regards cuts in manpower, the Army is already overstretched, given its very high number of overseas commitments – the target of 24-month intervals between operational tours is wishful thinking.
Our forces must, of course, adjust to meet the requirements of the post-Cold War strategic context. But Geoff Hoon’s proposals damage regimental tradition, heritage and local connections, and move the balance away from the backbone of our armed forces – our servicemen and women.
The above texts are edited versions of articles which first appeared in the Parliamentary Monitor magazine.
|
