---

Defence Reform Bill

Yes, but if so, that was always going to be the case, and we should not have been sold the package of a cut in Regular numbers of 20,000 on the basis that at least we could look forward to 30,000 Reservists being added. That is no way to treat a mature Parliament or to show respect for the judgment of parliamentarians who are doing their best to supply the best level of defence that we can within the budget available.

A very simple principle is at stake here. Let us suppose that someone comes to a sovereign Parliament and says, “We are going to make a significant cut in the size of the Army, but don’t worry about it because we are going to compensate for it by building up the Reserves to the tune of 30,000 people.” If there are any significant or reasonable doubts at all about whether the 30,000 target will be achieved, it is reasonable to say, “Hang on a minute, what happens if the 30,000 is not achieved?” If the answer is that the 20,000 cuts will take place in any case, it is absolutely unacceptable to have promised the 30,000 in the first place, especially as it was explicitly stated to the House that the cuts in the Regulars would not be fully or irreversibly implemented until we knew that the Reserves were going to be forthcoming. I do not want us to have this debate again in a few months’ time or in a few years’ time over the fact that we have neither the number of Regulars we need nor the number of extra Reserves that were promised. That is why, whatever the intricacies of the wording of new clause 3, I intend to support it.