---

Defence in the United Kingdom

I welcome the opportunity to speak briefly in this important and wide-ranging debate on defence in the United Kingdom. I begin by paying tribute to the members of the armed services who serve this country so well. We are very proud of them, of the standards that they set and of what they achieve. I shall also pay a brief tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who this afternoon made his last appearance at the Dispatch Box. He has given long and distinguished service in the House, and perhaps he will feel happier at laying down the burdens that that has placed upon his shoulders. He will be much missed, but I can assure him that in stepping down, he will rediscover the freedom and independence that Members on the Back Benches are allowed in some small measure from time to time. The Minister has made it clear in numerous written answers that the final structure of the Territorial Army will be confirmed by the end of the year. That announcement about the future is vital, because the TA is in dire straits—one might say meltdown. All we have to go on is the announcement made on 16 December last year by the Chief of the General Staff to the Army chain of command on the ““Future Army Structure Reserves—Structural Changes””, which will take place around 2007–08 following the planned amalgamation and disbandment of regular infantry regiments, I presume. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the replies given by the Minister at Defence questions on Monday to two of my hon. Friends who asked questions about TA recruitment, I want briefly to pursue the issue. It is all very well stating that reserve forces will carry out certain tasks and specialist activities to supplement the regular forces, but that surely depends on available manpower. It will be interesting to learn the actual size of TA that the MOD is seeking. At present, the TA is 15 per cent. under strength and overall numbers are falling. As has been said, the current requirement for TA personnel is 41,610, but the actual figure is 35,560, which is the lowest since the TA was founded in 1907. The Minister asserted on Monday that the fall in TA manning has already been reversed. However, I understand that the number of resignations exceeds the number of people who have passed basic training and are fit for deployment, which is a direct consequence of the Iraq war. For the first six months of the war, resignations stood at an average of 162 people a month. From September 2003 until August this year, the average jumped up to 540 resignations a month. That point was highlighted in The Guardian this week—I hasten to add that I do not read that newspaper regularly—in an article based on parliamentary questions entitled, ““Civilians who signed up to serve in the TA speak for the first time about why they have handed in their kit for good””, which is a matter of great concern for everyone. A tremendous physical and financial effort has gone into recruitment, which has fallen by 35 per cent. in the past eight financial years. In 1997–98, there were 10,400 recruits; in 2004–05, that figure decreased to 6,900 recruits, with the costs of recruitment doubling. In 2001–02, expenditure on recruitment was £5 million, increasing to £10.5 million in 2004–05. Those recruitment figures require further study because from 1 March 2003 to 30 June 2005, some 3,800 people were recruited as infantry TA privates, yet only 1,300 of them completed phases 1 and 2 of basic training, and 1,960 privates left the TA in the same period. More than 35 per cent. of the TA have not collected their financial bounty. That figure of 12,010 individuals is, coincidentally, exactly the same as the number of individuals whom the MOD claims are still available for deployment. I respectfully suggest that that might not be true.