---

Territorial Army

The hon. Gentleman’s important point pre-empts my speech; I shall come to it a little later. I turn to the care and medical support for our reservists. My right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) and the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) mentioned Selly Oak and the issue of care for our service personnel. I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Forest of Dean about Selly Oak; anyone reading the press during the past six to eight months must wonder what has been going on there. As the hon. Gentleman has confirmed, what has been going on is top-quality treatment for our wounded armed forces personnel. That has been brought about only because of excellent support and partnership working with our NHS colleagues at Selly Oak. Working with our military medical personnel, they have provided outstanding surgery and nursing. That has come in addition to the care provided by welfare support, liaison officers and now psychiatric support on the wards as well. I welcome the hon. Gentlemen’s comments about Selly Oak. The hon. Member for New Forest, East said that patients had been abused at Selly Oak. I can say only that I have asked for such allegations to be investigated, but no one has been able to come up with any evidence that that took place. The fact remains that people get top-quality care at Selly Oak. We have also improved security there. As the hon. Member for Forest of Dean mentioned, we intend to make further improvements. We will also consider how to take forward the new ward at the new hospital; clearly, the view of the chiefs of staff will be important in that. Like regulars, reservists are treated in Selly Oak, and they get world-class treatment from both armed forces and NHS personnel. Having said that, it is important to get a few things about what is happening for reservists on the record. As has been mentioned, a number of measures have recently been taken, and I particularly make the point that our Territorial Army soldiers are entitled to exactly the same medical treatment and care as regular soldiers. I am particularly proud of our provision of fast-track diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitation for those who have suffered physical injuries and of our improved mental health support for all reservists returning from deployment. Those are among the recent measures that the Government have introduced. I want to give a bit more detail about the improved mental health support. Last year a King’s college study into the health of service personnel on operations in Iraq, funded by the MOD, noted a slightly increased effect on the mental health of the reserve forces compared to the regulars. We responded. As has been mentioned in this debate, last year I announced the highly comprehensive reservists’ mental health programme, which is an excellent package. Under the programme, we liaise with the reservists’ GPs and offer a mental health assessment at the reserves training and mobilisation centre in Chilwell, Nottinghamshire. If someone is diagnosed with a mental health condition related to service on recent operations, we offer out-patient treatment at one of the MOD’s 15 departments of community health. In more acute cases, the defence medical service will assist access to NHS in-patient treatment. We work closely with Combat Stress, which we fund to the tune of £2.9 million. As I said, we are in negotiations with the organisation and will significantly increase its resources once those negotiations are complete. We shall make an announcement on that in the near future. The hon. Member for Forest of Dean made a point about what more we can do. In the coming weeks and months, we will make announcements on the pilot schemes on setting up a system in which we work with the NHS and Combat Stress to develop advice and support for the NHS, so that those who suffer mental health problems as a result of their time in the armed forces can be better treated and understood. Yesterday, I announced that the new assessment programme will be extended back to include those who served from 1982. A significant amount of work is taking place that also deals with how we ensure support for reservists, who often go back to a community as individuals—not among mates, as regulars would. We continue to seek to improve that. A few weeks ago, we had a welfare conference to consider how better to support the more vulnerable members of our armed forces—particularly those who are injured or ill as a result of their service. We shall make further progress on that in the coming months. I want to refer to some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Canterbury that come from the report of the all-party group on reserve forces. The report says that, whenever possible, members of the TA should deploy as formed sub-units, rather than individual augmentees. It expresses a wish for TA officers to have greater opportunities for command on operational deployments. The benefits of deploying formed cohorts, and sub-units when that is practical, are acknowledged. Indeed, the latest operational commitments plot reflects that, with TA units being tasked to deliver cohorts or sub-units to specific operations. Longer warnings to units about providing that requirement, together with the benefits that the cohorts will bring to unit camaraderie and cohesion, will provide significant benefits. However, given the individual circumstances of many TA members, many will still volunteer to deploy as individuals, and be happy to do so. However, I take the hon. Gentleman’s point and hope that I have given him some reassurance. Similarly, opportunities for TA officers to command do exist, at platoon and group level as well as at sub-unit or company squadron level, and in our in-theatre headquarters as staff officers. Of course, we must not forget that command is often about more than operations—TA officers remain critical to ensuring that their men and women are well trained and administered when not deployed. We assess that the TA can sustain its support to operations at current levels for the foreseeable future, but we will continue to keep that under review. We have recognised that we have used some groups on enduring operations more than others. We carefully monitor their use to ensure that that is sustainable in the long term. We have planned our TA requirement on operations to involve approximately 1,200 TA members each year—on occasions, more than that. We use intelligent selection to ensure that we choose the most appropriate individuals. That takes account of factors such as previous service already undertaken and family and employment circumstances. The concern highlighted by the all-party group about the practical maximum for call-out is encapsulated in the ““Defence Intent for Reserves””, which acknowledges the one-year-in-five maximum for practical deployment. However, individuals can volunteer for operational service within that period too. TA post-operational reports do not reflect a problem among those who have been deployed; most find the experience positive. I found that when I talked to many reservists and TA members in Afghanistan and Iraq; that was often why they had volunteered to join in the first place. It is important to make that point. The experience is often positive; such reservists welcome having a clear operational role and want the opportunity to exercise it. That has also been confirmed by the National Audit Office in its report on the reserve forces, published in March 2006. Post-operational reports also indicate that members of the TA are happy to operate either as formed units or as individual augmentees. We have been working to ensure that the roles that they undertake on operations are both worth while and suited to their personal experience and skill sets, an issue that has been mentioned. Concerns were raised about the suggestion that we revisit the restructuring of the TA infantry companies and yeomanry squadrons, primarily because of the current demands on the TA as it supports enduring operations and the need to provide a critical mass for training that is challenging at all levels. If the hon. Member for Canterbury gives examples of where in particular he feels the structure needs revisiting, we can investigate his concerns. As I said earlier, we remain confident about the rationale behind the restructuring of the Territorial Army. The changes that we introduced under the future Army structure have released more regular infantry troops for deployment, who will in due course reduce the requirement for the TA infantry to deploy in support of current operations.