Back to top
Skip to menu
Skip to content
Call me thick for opening a can of worms, but has it occured to anyone that maybe the army (being a smidgeon larger than the other two...) might need a little more money than the RAF and the Navy?
It's being assessed at present by 2 Sig Bde and Land Forces, expect something early next week.
Unless it's been bought forward, the GoC and the Bde OC have a meeting at the end of next week, so it'll be the week after before we hear.
If the young man quoted by Dr Fox had actually signed on, then I think we may have a splendid contender for the fastest ever breach of the Communicating in Public DIN: join the Armed Forces in the evening, email the Opposition in the morning.
If only he was in the URNU - could have the makings of a future First Sea Lord...
If the young man quoted by Dr Fox had actually signed on, then I think we may have a splendid contender for the fastest ever breach of the Communicating in Public DIN: join the Armed Forces in the evening, email the Opposition in the morning.
If only he was in the URNU - could have the makings of a future First Sea Lord...
Ollie, I'm open to correction but even members of the armed forces are entitled to correspond (within limits, OPSEC, PERSEC etc.) with their representatiove in parliament in a private capacity. I'm sure the author couldn't realise that Dr. Fox would read it into the public record.
What is specifically mentioned in the DIN is contributions to forums such as this. Hands up anyone who has sought permission to post on ARRSE?
edited for mong spelling.
If the young man quoted by Dr Fox had actually signed on, then I think we may have a splendid contender for the fastest ever breach of the Communicating in Public DIN: join the Armed Forces in the evening, email the Opposition in the morning.
If only he was in the URNU - could have the makings of a future First Sea Lord...
Ollie, I'm open to correction but even members of the armed forces are entitled to correspond (within limits, OPSEC, PERSEC etc.) with their representatiove in parliament in a private capacity. I'm sure the author couldn't realise that Dr. Fox would read it into the public record.
What is specifically mentioned in the DIN is contributions to forums such as this. Hands up anyone who has sought permission to post on ARRSE?
edited for mong spelling.
Fair enough DR - one could say it depends on whether he wrote to Dr Fox in his capacity as a constituency MP (unstated) or his capacity as Shadow Defence Secretary (inferred but not explicit). One of those grey areas that the DIN, I suspect, deliberately avoids; bit like the whole issue of Reservists as Parliamentarians. If you ever want to read about REAL bloodshed in the House over the TA, I commend to you the saga of 2Lt Duncan Sandys MP in 1938, outing the chronic failures of equipping the TA Anti-Aircraft Division. Hore-Belisha, the War Secretary, wanted to prosecute him under OSA, whereupon the Speaker countered with a threat of Contempt of the House for Hore-Belisha if he tried doing Sandys for words spoken under Privilege. Mexican standoff ensued.
Anyway - let us therefore not charge the young man with breaching the DIN, but nevertheless commend him for his debut performance...
TSC(A) and TSC(B) will still happen, what you have been told is wrong, question your CoC
Hmm....That's proper confusing... Will need to check I didn't get wrong end of stick. ROSO seemed pretty clear mind....
BTW, are you still local to Teesside or exiled?
I live in the NE, whats your unit, you can pm me if you prefer
DJ - I agree with you entirely.
My unit will be running some training early next year, but until then I can't see what the fuss really is about. So we won't have any weekends during November to January, but these are usually poorly attended given the weather and some are a little "jaded" after camp.
Unless you are keen/have no life or are a bounty hunter
wrong bounty hunter just dose the minimum so thay dont mined
You are right, if 19,000 TA soldiers were paid a 5 year bounty of £1500, it would cost £28,500,000..... Bingo! They want a saving of £20 million. If they turn up and continue training, with pay, but give up their bounty, they make the same savings, don't suffer skill fade and don't lose soldiers from them getting disillusioned and finding something else to do with their time between now and the 10th of April.
No doubt some will complain and give up because they lose their bounty, but not as many as if they lose their pay and bounty, as some will.
Well we could stop all retention bounties and resigning bonuses for military personal, that may save the same amount of money if they don’t like it they may leave and join the TA we will welcome them willingly
You are right, if 19,000 TA soldiers were paid a 5 year bounty of £1500, it would cost £28,500,000..... Bingo! They want a saving of £20 million. If they turn up and continue training, with pay, but give up their bounty, they make the same savings, don't suffer skill fade and don't lose soldiers from them getting disillusioned and finding something else to do with their time between now and the 10th of April.
No doubt some will complain and give up because they lose their bounty, but not as many as if they lose their pay and bounty, as some will.
Well we could stop all retention bounties and resigning bonuses for military personal, that may save the same amount of money if they don’t like it they may leave and join the TA we will welcome them willingly
This IS a joke, isn't it ???
Yes.
Bounty hunting is just doing the minimum required for bounty.
msr
If the young man quoted by Dr Fox had actually signed on, then I think we may have a splendid contender for the fastest ever breach of the Communicating in Public DIN: join the Armed Forces in the evening, email the Opposition in the morning.
This “DIN” does not cover this case as it is already in the public domain and it has no security classification, any one may contact their MP as long as they do not break the O,S,A it is called freedom of speech and I think many people have died to keep this so have a go at some one who is trying to damage this country not protect it.
(OTCs are your future Officers so abuse them and lose them )
If the young man quoted by Dr Fox had actually signed on, then I think we may have a splendid contender for the fastest ever breach of the Communicating in Public DIN: join the Armed Forces in the evening, email the Opposition in the morning.
This “DIN” does not cover this case as it is already in the public domain and it has no security classification, any one may contact their MP as long as they do not break the O,S,A it is called freedom of speech and I think many people have died to keep this so have a go at some one who is trying to damage this country not protect it.
(OTCs are your future Officers so abuse them and lose them )
Message from my CoC when training freeze was announced was DO contact your local MP.
Many thanks to OldSnowy for posting that. One line particularly caught my eye
The DIN does cover this case as does the OSA. The DIN covers all contributions to public debate - yes, including posting on Arrse (waves to boss and CO).
The OSA also covers this debate - it has nothing to do with "Protective Marking":
So, the question is not PM vs non-PM, it is "damaging" versus "not damaging". We saw how that went in the Damien Green case but is your "career" going to take that much to irreparably damage? The lad who wrote to his MP is probably making a privileged (therefore protected) statement - but neither you nor I are ...
As for "freedom of speech" - we're not in the States. Our entitlement is laid down in Article 11 of the ECHR, as adopted into UK law in the Human Rights Act. I draw your attention to sub-para 2 (my bolds):
Well we could stop all retention bounties and resigning bonuses for military personal, that may save the same amount of money if they don’t like it they may leave and join the TA we will welcome them willingly
This IS a joke, isn't it ???
Listening to what my husband told me from his briefing last week this is the idea they have come up with should the regs go over manned. it's not just us TA lot that will suffer, the reg's are about to get shafted as well!
I can see them removing our Bounty payments as well as all the other cut backs. This is the 2nd time in as many months that they have reduced our buget after all and our bounty is the only thing we have left to go.
I can't - the major reason we have no pension entitlement is because the argue we get bounty in lieu. Stopping bounty is a can of worms they don't want to open, even without the effect on some people's motivation to train.
Andy
1. It's one Army, but I'm told that a separate board is wanted.
2. Regulars, don't bait the TA; we've heard it all before and it's boring.
2. Regulars, don't bait the TA; we've heard it all before and it's boring.
Re: Savings Measures - the Official Line
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 6:31 am
I was informed that because this is an Army problem then the savings must come from within. Something about this Government not keeping it's promises!
wildboar
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Oct 16, 2009
- Location: South Wales
-
Re: Savings Measures - the Official Line
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 6:45 am
OldSnowy:
Correct. As posted in other threads (I really must combine some of those...) it's only the Army that has over recruited/overspent in this manner, I'm afraid. Not entirely their fault - they need Recruits now, and just haven't been given enough dosh to pay or train them.
Call me thick for opening a can of worms, but has it occured to anyone that maybe the army (being a smidgeon larger than the other two...) might need a little more money than the RAF and the Navy?
R.D.D.
- Posts: 126
- Joined: Sep 28, 2008
- Location: Under the table
-
Re: Savings Measures - the Official Line
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 9:00 am
For those of you who are a) interested in how this is playing out politically and b) too lazy/busy to find it on Hansard:
Hansard, 15th October 2009.
Mr. Swire: Many hon. Members have seen at first hand the extraordinary role being performed by the Territory Army and our reserve forces, which is indistinguishable from the role being played in Helmand by our regular forces. Some of us cannot understand what is going on with the Government’s freeze on training and pay over the next six months, as it seems entirely to contradict what the Secretary of State has been telling the House of late. Will he take this opportunity to clarify the Government’s position on the future of our reserve forces?
Mr. Ainsworth: Let me come to the Territory Army; I will not try to avoid doing so in any way.
Slightly later in the debate:
Despite the continued real-terms increases, pressures on the defence budget are well documented. Additional spending on operations in Afghanistan has risen to
15 Oct 2009 : Column 469
reflect the situation, from £700 million in 2006 to more than £3 billion this year, and that is on top of a defence budget of more than £35 billion a year. We are adjusting the core defence budget to reprioritise Afghanistan, and that means some tough choices: for example, we have cancelled some Territorial Army training that is not related to Afghanistan. Let me assure the House that no individual deploying to Afghanistan does so without the required training: no TA soldier will be deployed on operations unless the Army is satisfied that he is properly trained and properly prepared. Those deploying over the next year will of course continued to be paid for the training that they do, as well as for the deployment. That is what making Afghanistan the main effort means, and I make no apology—no apology at all—for moving resources in that direction. That means that pain has to be taken elsewhere, but Afghanistan, with 9,000 people in theatre, has to be the main effort. I have the agreement of the chiefs of staff that that should be so, and we are looking at the degree to which it means that we prioritise resources in the direction of Afghanistan, but, as I have said, I make no apology to the House for doing so.
Again, slightly later in the debate:
15 Oct 2009 : Column 470
Mr. Gray rose—
Mr. Brazier rose—
Mr. Ainsworth: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds), to whom I have not given way yet, and then I shall give way to the others.
Mr. Dodds: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way so often. On the issue of the Territorial Army and the freeze on training, I should say that more than 1,000 members of the Territorial Army from Northern Ireland are on operational deployment, which is a very high proportion, and there is real concern about what will happen to preparation for Afghanistan over the next six months. Is he saying that anyone going to Afghanistan will be trained and paid? We need to have clarification about that, because there is great concern.
Mr. Ainsworth: I did the Territorials review, so I have become acquainted with a lot of people in the House who know an awful lot about the Territorial Army and have a close attachment to it. I know that, if you do anything with the Territorial Army, you bring down a storm on yourself, but I have talked to the new Chief of the General Staff about the situation—
Mr. Brazier: He is a regular.
Mr. Ainsworth: “He is a regular and therefore cannot be trusted”?—I think that we have to guard against that! I have said to him that I know he is a regular, and I have got my eye on him, but he is running the Army and appears to be a pretty competent guy. I have to take some advice about his priority, and I agreed with him and the other chiefs some weeks ago that we had to make Afghanistan the main effort. It means that we cannot drop everything else, and no way should we, but there must be a degree of priority for Afghanistan. Everyone is agreed on that, and hard consequences flow from it.
Mr. Gray: No one would disagree with the Secretary of State about the main effort being centred on Afghanistan, but, to use an example of the situation that we face, I cite the Honourable Artillery Company, my regiment, which has 11 soldiers deployed in Afghanistan, has made regular contributions over the past eight years and, presumably, will wish to do so in the future. The company’s commanding officer told the regiment last night that ordinary regular training has been effectively cancelled, and its recruits’ corps training has, too, so there will be no training in the regiment. Six months from now, will the Honourable Artillery Company still be able to provide the support that it has given to our efforts in Afghanistan over the past eight years? I, for one, very much doubt that it will.
Mr. Ainsworth: I can only promise the House that, as we take these difficult decisions about prioritisation and the amount of resource that we shift, I shall be very mindful to ensure that we do the minimum damage elsewhere while making certain that we give the appropriate priority to Afghanistan. I know that among those taking the decisions there are regulars who many Members suspect of not having sufficient feeling for the contribution of the Territorials, so I shall bear that in mind as well.
15 Oct 2009 : Column 471
Mr. Brazier: The Secretary of State has been generous in giving way, and he has taken a long-term interest in reserves, for which I am particularly grateful. However, I really do urge him to bear in mind that, however professional our regular forces are, they have a very long history of not understanding how the reserves work. To cancel all training for the next six months for everybody except the relatively small number of people who have immediate call-out papers for Afghanistan will devastate the Territorial Army and completely attenuate its ability to provide forces for the future.
Mr. Ainsworth: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and know that he says it with conviction, but I can only repeat the assurance that I have: as we go forward and try to ensure that we properly prioritise our operations in Afghanistan to the degree that the nation would expect, we are also mindful of the issues that he has raised.
Dr. Andrew Murrison (Westbury) (Con): Will the Secretary of State understand that such hibernation of skills—of the sort that the Public Accounts Committee’s report on support for high-intensity operations highlighted—may be accommodated in the regular forces, although the impact on our generic war-fighting capability would be severe enough, but cannot be accommodated in the reserve forces? Reserves will simply walk: training is what they do, and it holds them in. Does he not understand that this decision will be a huge blow to morale, and that reserve forces, on whom we depend so much, are likely simply to fade away?
Mr. Ainsworth: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I believe that, within the priorities that we have had to make, that decision had to be taken. We carried out the reserves review, but I understand the importance of the offer—we are talking about volunteers, and we have to make sure that we maintain the commitment of volunteers, otherwise we will lose them. I fully understand that point.
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East) (Con): The information that I have, which I believe to be accurate, is that the reason for the cut in funding for the Territorial Army is that Regular Army recruitment has exceeded expectation and that funds have to be found somewhere in the land budget to pay for the training of that extra recruitment. Is that true? If it is not, why is the decision on the cut in TA funding being taken so late in the year?
Mr. Ainsworth: No one—neither my predecessor nor I—has tried, in the circumstances that we have faced, to discourage the recruitment opportunity that the Army has had. Yes, of course there are financial circumstances. Recruitment to the Regular Army has been so successful over a period of time. I do not think that Conservative Front Benchers would, on reflection, have taken another decision; if they had been in the position of my predecessor or me at various points of this year, I do not think that they would have said no. When the opportunity and need were there, recruitment was allowed to progress. That is the priority, and it is also the Chief of the General Staff’s priority.
Mr. Arbuthnot: By and large, there is cross-party agreement in the House about the priorities for what we devote to defence and about the priorities within defence.
15 Oct 2009 : Column 472
However, the Government have taken two profoundly wrong decisions. The first was to reduce spending on research and technology. The second was to cut funding to the reserves. That is profoundly wrong, and it will have long-term consequences for the armed forces.
Mr. Ainsworth: As I have said, we have to try to be mindful of permanent damage to our reserves and of protecting our research and development. We cannot completely sell tomorrow to pay for today. However, today is the pressing need. Afghanistan has to be the main effort and I do not think that any Conservative Member genuinely disagrees with that in principle.
Mr. Swire: I pay tribute to the fantastic work being done by the medics at Camp Bastion, where our wounded are receiving first-class treatment. A lot of the medical staff there are reservists themselves. Is the Secretary of State absolutely certain that the effective freeze on TA training and recruitment will not endanger the services that we will be able to offer in future to our wounded at Camp Bastion?
Mr. Ainsworth: I am certain that those facilities will not be put at risk in any way, and I will continue to satisfy myself on that point. I know the huge contribution that reserves play in medical services. It varies with deployments, but generally speaking it involves a high proportion.
Mr. Angus MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP): I am informed that the Scottish battalions have to find £4 million of cuts over a two-week period. Does the Secretary of State not feel that we are spoiling the ship for a ha’porth of tar? Will not the soldiers and reservists walk out, so that they will not be there to call on in future?
Mr. Ainsworth: I do not think that they will. I hope that they do not and that the hon. Gentleman does not encourage them to. I do not think that he can credibly argue against the idea that Afghanistan should be the main effort.
Later still, a sever savaging from Dr Liam Fox:
The situation with our reserve forces generally, and the TA especially, is worse than in other areas. Eighteen thousand members of our reserve forces, most of whom were from the TA, have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2002, and we are extremely fortunate as a nation to have had those reserve forces available to us. However, the Government’s treatment of the reserve forces is unforgivable. In 1997, the establishment figure for the TA was 59,000. Today it is 38,500, even though the current strength is 28,920.
We learned last April that thousands more TA positions would be cut from the establishment figure. According to the Government’s latest figures, 12 out of the 14 TA infantry battalions are under strength. On 28 April, in a statement to which he has referred, the Secretary of State said:
“Initial training will be restructured so that new recruits receive sufficient military skills to participate in their units’ collective training within six months of joining, and are fully trained and eligible for mobilisation in three years. Routine training will also be reviewed and sufficient man training days allocated to ensure that annual military competency standards can be achieved by all.”—[ Official Report, 28 April 2009; Vol. 491, c. 702.]
As several hon. Members have already pointed out, we have now learned that training for all members of the TA who are not going to Afghanistan in the next year is going to be cut. The operational budget for the TA for this financial year was £38 million. We now know that it is going to be cut to around £23 million. That will have a very negative impact on the long-term readiness of the TA and long-term recruitment.
Let me give the House a graphic example. A young man sent me an email today. It states:
“I have always had an interest in the armed forces so at the freshers fair this year”—
15 Oct 2009 : Column 483
at King’s college—
“I jumped at the chance to join the London University Officer Training Corps, not only would I be trained by the military, develop my leadership skills but I would also get paid — always a good thing as a student struggling to pay a loan!...So after successfully getting in through the rigorous interviews and selection weekend (held in norfolk) I arrived for my first training evening, excited, keen and willing to learn! We were sat down in the hall and the Major walked out and announced bluntly — ‘There will be NO pay for any training officers this year.’ He went on to tell us about how the whole Army was facing a cut back. I think this is outrageous! We’re fighting two large wars, as training officers we should be seen as the next generation...properly respected and paid!”
The Government are willing to spend £12 billion on a pointless VAT cut to support their political reputation, but they are unwilling to spend £20 million to train the TA while we are at war in Afghanistan. That shows a very twisted set of priorities. The Government need to understand that for many in the TA, the TA is a habit: break the habit, break the TA. That is exactly what their proposals will do.
For our defence policy to be successful, we must have a clear strategy, defined objectives and the necessary military capabilities. Too often, this Government have simply not been up to the task. They are losing support among the public for the mission in Afghanistan, because they do not tell them why we need to be there in terms of our clear national security priorities. They are not making clear what losing would mean and they are not clearly defining what success would look like. We need better supplied forces in Afghanistan, with better spares and equipment.
Ultimately, the question is how much we value our forces. The TA decision is disgraceful and penny-pinching, and it is a shameful way to treat the volunteers in the TA. It may save £20 million, but the Government are willing to spend any amount to bail out their reputation in the middle of an economic crisis of their own making. In Afghanistan and elsewhere, whether dealing with equipment or our forces, if we will the ends, we must will the means. Half of what is needed will not buy us half a victory. Our armed forces deserve so much better than they are getting from this Government
OTCs come up later still:
2.53 pm
Mr. James Arbuthnot (North-East Hampshire) (Con): Yesterday the moving roll call read out by the Prime Minister of those who have died in Afghanistan over the last few months held the attention of the country, and I hope that the poignant letter read out by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) about the death of Kyle Adams did the same. These are men and women who will be honoured for ever. I hope that we shall also be able to remember for ever, and honour during their lives, those who have been wounded in body, in spirit or in mind, because that is something of which we often fail to take sufficient account.
We also heard yesterday from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North-East Milton Keynes (Mr. Lancaster) about the curtailment of his Territorial Army training. That was very important, but today, shortly before I came into the Chamber, I received a
15 Oct 2009 : Column 496
message from my daughter. She is a university undergraduate, and last weekend she went to join the officer training corps at her university. Using the words young people employ, she described the weekend as “mental” and “absolutely incredible.” She joined up with enthusiasm. Just before I entered the Chamber, I received a message from her saying that she will not be paid for any training but that it is expected that paid training will recommence in April. I do not know how much reliance we can put on such an expectation.
Mr. Soames: I am the honorary colonel of the Bristol university OTC, and I have just received a message from the commanding officer that that is, indeed, the situation.
Mr. Arbuthnot: I must confess that my daughter is at Bristol university, and I shall instruct her to pay due respect to the colonel.
Ann Winterton (Congleton) (Con): I am not the commanding officer of anything, but I can assure my right hon. Friend that a member of one of the Yorkshire Territorial Army units has informed me that they will be allowed—indeed, encouraged—to continue with the TA but they will not be paid. I also join my right hon. Friend in bemoaning the cuts to the OTC because my second oldest grandson is at Exeter university and, like my right hon. Friend’s daughter, he will be adversely affected.
Back to the TA, later on:
Mr. Soames: Will the hon. Lady forgive me for a moment?
Secondly, on the Territorial Army, Lieutenant-General Sir Hew Pike, a former inspector-general of the TA, wrote a letter to The Times last week, which he started like this:
“Sir, The decision to suspend training and matches would quickly spell the death knell of a football or cricket club. So it is with the Territorial Army (TA), which relies on regular training activity to develop and sustain skills and morale.”
He is of course completely right. Culling TA training days to the extent that the Ministry of Defence is will result in an under-trained TA, with soldiers deploying on operations who are not properly prepared. It will result also in major retention issues for the TA. After all, why should people remain committed to an organisation that appears to show such a callous lack of commitment to them? That, in turn, will undo much of the substantial investment that has been made in the TA, lower confidence in TA soldiers among their counterparts and the chain of command, and challenge the ability of the Ministry of Defence to sustain high-tempo operations in Afghanistan in the medium term.
15 Oct 2009 : Column 503
The British Army in the field simply could not survive without the extraordinary input of the TA. For example, as far as the Defence Medical Services are concerned, the Public Accounts Committee report published this week states that the annual operational requirement for anaesthetists is 108, and that there are 45 deployable regulars. The balance is made up by Territorials. Presumably, the Minister will exempt medical staff from the cuts to TA training.
Part of the speech from that doughty champion of the TA, Julian Brazier MP TD:
4.35pm
Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con): I cannot pay my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon) enough of a tribute for the remarkable speech that he has just made.
Mr. Soames: Brilliant!
Mr. Brazier: In fact, we have had several outstanding speeches, including the one by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames).
The bulk of the debate has focused, rightly, on Afghanistan, and I want to put on record how incredibly proud the men and women of Canterbury are of the 5th Battalion the Royal Scottish Regiment (Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders), who were recently given the freedom of the city, and of our own Territorial Army unit, the 3rd Battalion Princess of Wales Royal Regiment. In recent deployments, the Argylls had one killed and several wounded, while one Territorial was severely wounded.
Many years ago, when I was slimmer and fitter, I was privileged to serve in the Territorial Army for 13 years. Before the debate, I looked for my regimental tie in my palatial second home—over the Elephant and Castle public house—but I seem to have lost it. Nevertheless, I want to focus on the crisis facing the TA as a result of the deeply unwelcome decision that has been made by the Government.
At one point during the deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, reservists—most of them Territorials—accounted for one fifth of the force in Iraq and for one eighth of the force in Afghanistan. Given that our reserves are very small—they make up only one fifth of our total manpower—and that they are people with civilian jobs, that is truly astonishing. A total of 15 Territorials and one air reservist have been killed in the operations.
These people did not come from nowhere. They did not walk off the street. Most were people with busy civilian jobs, but they chose to spend their evenings and weekends in draughty drill halls and on exercises to prepare for deployment. Often, that choice compromised their civilian careers and their family lives, and the same can be said for the many people involved in training them who did not themselves get the opportunity to deploy. I cannot stress enough how much the TA will be devastated if it really turns out that, for five and a half months, there is no training for anyone apart from those due to go on operations.
The essence of any voluntary organisation—be it a charity, a football club, a political party or part of the volunteer forces—is that it has to be led by high-quality people willing to make the sacrifice year in and year out. The Government’s proposal sends an appalling message.
I have a huge regard for the hon. Member for Harlow (Bill Rammell), who is Minister of State, and for the Secretary of State. They have been generous to my
15 Oct 2009 : Column 522
all-party group and given us privileged access. We are just negotiating a date for the Minister to come and address us. For that reason, I very much hope that he will be able to take the edge of that appalling proposal.
Earlier, I was one of the people who pointed out that Sir David Richards was a regular. I have never been privileged to meet him, but I know quite a number of people who know him well. Every one of them believes him to be a really outstanding soldier. His command of the operation in Sierra Leone—one of the comparatively few wars that we have participated in to have been swift, successful and extraordinarily well handled—was a model.
The fact remains, however, that generals advise, Ministers decide. In 1921, Sir Henry Wilson was an extraordinarily distinguished predecessor of Sir David Richards. He had been Chief of the Imperial General Staff since the final year of the first world war. As Secretary of State for War, Sir Winston Churchill, who then suffered under the considerable disadvantage that he was deeply unpopular because he had been blamed for the Dardanelles campaign, faced down Sir Henry Wilson when he proposed disbanding the Territory Army and flatly told him that he was wrong.
Much more recently, we have had two very clear indications of the absolute inability of the Regular Army to handle the TA—one was the catastrophic shambles of the way in which the mobilisation for the Balkans campaign was handled. Just after the decision was taken to make a huge cut in TA numbers, vast numbers of Territorials received the most disorganised call-out notices. Unbelievably, the same thing was repeated in the first stage of the Iraq conflict. That was why the Government took the very wise decision to have a two-star officer who was a Territorial with a civilian job to advise them, so that they got advice directly from the horse’s mouth. The Duke of Westminster was the first holder of the post.
I should like to make a wider point, although I am conscious of the time. Again and again, we have failed to understand where the next threat will come from. In 1914, the Commons and the country were gripped with a sense of crisis because Ireland seemed to be sliding into war, with arms being raced into both Protestant and Catholic communities. Only at the very last moment, we realised that the real threat to the country came from the continent. A week before the Argentine invasion of the Falklands, most people in this country had no idea that we even had a garrison there. Three months before Saddam Hussein invaded Iraq, we heard restated that there was no question of sending armoured forces out of area. On 10 September 2001, anyone who had said that we would go to war in Afghanistan would have been thought out of his mind.
The truth is that we must keep capabilities alive that are not needed on current operations—that is absolutely fundamental—and when we face desperate pressures on the defence budget, reserve forces are the best way of doing so. There is no reason why the Navy’s mine clearing capability is all manned by regular naval personnel. Historically, the vast majority of them were reservists. There is no reason why we should not have one or two armoured brigades in the Territorial Army. Do we really believe that we will deploy Regular Army air defence units in the near future against an opponent with a superior air force? We need all those capabilities
15 Oct 2009 : Column 523
and they could be provided much more cheaply in the reserve forces, but they need the opportunity to train at evenings and weekends and be paid to do so.
Last one to mention the Reserves in the Debate:
5.30 pm
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East) (Con):
Huge concern was expressed about the threat to future reserves. Apart from the robust comments of the shadow Secretary of State, we heard contributions from the Chairman of the Defence Committee, from my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Sussex and for East Devon and especially from my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), who has shown a long dedication to the cause of the reserves. When the Minister replies, will he tell us whether the Government will guarantee first not to extend the non-payment of the Territorial Army beyond this six-month period and, secondly, not to extend it to the Army Cadet Force as well? must stress to Ministers that people in the reserve forces do it not for the money, but for the training and the love of it. My own modest career as a seaman in the Royal Naval Reserve would not have appealed to me if I had not had a ship to go to sea on at the weekends as part of my training. If such training is cut off from
15 Oct 2009 : Column 537
people for six months, we may well find that, even if the tap is turned on again at the end of the process, such crews are no longer available.
Andrew Mackinlay: The hon. Gentleman has raised the subject of the number of Members who went in to bat today. I have been silent for a variety of reasons and I have been in and out of the Chamber, but I want to express my concern and, I think, that of many other Labour Members about the threat that has been posed. It is a narrow but important point. I accept that we can probably be reassured about the resources available for the training of the Territorial Army and other reserve forces, but I hope that the Minister can reassure us about that, particularly in relation to the Army but also in relation to the Royal Naval Reserve.
Dr. Lewis: As always, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I am only sorry that he was not present to contribute more fully to the debate. The preparation of reserves to go into the front line is a continuum. If a major segment of the training process is removed, that will work its way through the system so that when it is necessary to move on to the next section of the continuum, there will be nothing but a black hole. That is the threat to which the Government have exposed our reserves with this penny-pinching and unjustified measure
Closing remarks by Ministers:
5.46 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Bill Rammell): We have had a good and well-informed debate, which has demonstrated the strong degree of cross-party support that there is in the House for the armed forces. In every contribution, there has been a palpable recognition of the heroic, professional and hugely competent job our armed forces do on behalf of all of us. We are enormously in their debt.
In the time available to me, I shall try to respond to as many as possible of the points made in the debate. The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) started by raising an issue that many other hon. Members have also raised: the position of the Territorial Army. Let me be very clear that the change was recommended by the service chiefs. It was accepted by Ministers because, as the Secretary of State rightly pointed out, Afghanistan is our main priority and it is crucial that we redeploy resources to that main priority, but that does not mean that any member of the reserves will be deployed without appropriate pre-deployment training. Let me make it clear that no reservist will have to pay for their pre-deployment training and there is no cut to that pre-deployment training. I say that clearly for the record
15 Oct 2009 : Column 539
because the Leader of the Opposition tried to paint a very different picture at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday. It is important that we debate the issues based on the facts.
Dr. Fox: The Minister says the purpose of the cuts is to make money available for the front line in Afghanistan, but we are repeatedly told that the Treasury is fully funding the campaign in Afghanistan from the Treasury reserve. If that is the case, why are we cutting core MOD functions?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Bill Rammell):
……………………We have had a good and well- respect the role played by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) in the all-party group (Note: reference to the All Party Parliamentary Reserve Forces Group, chaired by JB) and the substantive work that he does on reserve issues. We met during the summer—as has happened with the Secretary of State on previous occasions—and my office, as he knows, is urgently trying to agree dates with him and his group. I understand the concern. We need to talk and I will hear his representations. I also very much agreed with his underlying point about the lack of predictability of 9/11, Iraq and the Falklands. One thing that I think we should learn from history is that we have not been very good at predicting the military future. I think that that was the point that he was trying to make. That lesson should be borne in mind for the future SDR.
Hansard, 15th October 2009.
Mr. Swire: Many hon. Members have seen at first hand the extraordinary role being performed by the Territory Army and our reserve forces, which is indistinguishable from the role being played in Helmand by our regular forces. Some of us cannot understand what is going on with the Government’s freeze on training and pay over the next six months, as it seems entirely to contradict what the Secretary of State has been telling the House of late. Will he take this opportunity to clarify the Government’s position on the future of our reserve forces?
Mr. Ainsworth: Let me come to the Territory Army; I will not try to avoid doing so in any way.
Slightly later in the debate:
Despite the continued real-terms increases, pressures on the defence budget are well documented. Additional spending on operations in Afghanistan has risen to
15 Oct 2009 : Column 469
reflect the situation, from £700 million in 2006 to more than £3 billion this year, and that is on top of a defence budget of more than £35 billion a year. We are adjusting the core defence budget to reprioritise Afghanistan, and that means some tough choices: for example, we have cancelled some Territorial Army training that is not related to Afghanistan. Let me assure the House that no individual deploying to Afghanistan does so without the required training: no TA soldier will be deployed on operations unless the Army is satisfied that he is properly trained and properly prepared. Those deploying over the next year will of course continued to be paid for the training that they do, as well as for the deployment. That is what making Afghanistan the main effort means, and I make no apology—no apology at all—for moving resources in that direction. That means that pain has to be taken elsewhere, but Afghanistan, with 9,000 people in theatre, has to be the main effort. I have the agreement of the chiefs of staff that that should be so, and we are looking at the degree to which it means that we prioritise resources in the direction of Afghanistan, but, as I have said, I make no apology to the House for doing so.
Again, slightly later in the debate:
15 Oct 2009 : Column 470
Mr. Gray rose—
Mr. Brazier rose—
Mr. Ainsworth: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds), to whom I have not given way yet, and then I shall give way to the others.
Mr. Dodds: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way so often. On the issue of the Territorial Army and the freeze on training, I should say that more than 1,000 members of the Territorial Army from Northern Ireland are on operational deployment, which is a very high proportion, and there is real concern about what will happen to preparation for Afghanistan over the next six months. Is he saying that anyone going to Afghanistan will be trained and paid? We need to have clarification about that, because there is great concern.
Mr. Ainsworth: I did the Territorials review, so I have become acquainted with a lot of people in the House who know an awful lot about the Territorial Army and have a close attachment to it. I know that, if you do anything with the Territorial Army, you bring down a storm on yourself, but I have talked to the new Chief of the General Staff about the situation—
Mr. Brazier: He is a regular.
Mr. Ainsworth: “He is a regular and therefore cannot be trusted”?—I think that we have to guard against that! I have said to him that I know he is a regular, and I have got my eye on him, but he is running the Army and appears to be a pretty competent guy. I have to take some advice about his priority, and I agreed with him and the other chiefs some weeks ago that we had to make Afghanistan the main effort. It means that we cannot drop everything else, and no way should we, but there must be a degree of priority for Afghanistan. Everyone is agreed on that, and hard consequences flow from it.
Mr. Gray: No one would disagree with the Secretary of State about the main effort being centred on Afghanistan, but, to use an example of the situation that we face, I cite the Honourable Artillery Company, my regiment, which has 11 soldiers deployed in Afghanistan, has made regular contributions over the past eight years and, presumably, will wish to do so in the future. The company’s commanding officer told the regiment last night that ordinary regular training has been effectively cancelled, and its recruits’ corps training has, too, so there will be no training in the regiment. Six months from now, will the Honourable Artillery Company still be able to provide the support that it has given to our efforts in Afghanistan over the past eight years? I, for one, very much doubt that it will.
Mr. Ainsworth: I can only promise the House that, as we take these difficult decisions about prioritisation and the amount of resource that we shift, I shall be very mindful to ensure that we do the minimum damage elsewhere while making certain that we give the appropriate priority to Afghanistan. I know that among those taking the decisions there are regulars who many Members suspect of not having sufficient feeling for the contribution of the Territorials, so I shall bear that in mind as well.
15 Oct 2009 : Column 471
Mr. Brazier: The Secretary of State has been generous in giving way, and he has taken a long-term interest in reserves, for which I am particularly grateful. However, I really do urge him to bear in mind that, however professional our regular forces are, they have a very long history of not understanding how the reserves work. To cancel all training for the next six months for everybody except the relatively small number of people who have immediate call-out papers for Afghanistan will devastate the Territorial Army and completely attenuate its ability to provide forces for the future.
Mr. Ainsworth: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and know that he says it with conviction, but I can only repeat the assurance that I have: as we go forward and try to ensure that we properly prioritise our operations in Afghanistan to the degree that the nation would expect, we are also mindful of the issues that he has raised.
Dr. Andrew Murrison (Westbury) (Con): Will the Secretary of State understand that such hibernation of skills—of the sort that the Public Accounts Committee’s report on support for high-intensity operations highlighted—may be accommodated in the regular forces, although the impact on our generic war-fighting capability would be severe enough, but cannot be accommodated in the reserve forces? Reserves will simply walk: training is what they do, and it holds them in. Does he not understand that this decision will be a huge blow to morale, and that reserve forces, on whom we depend so much, are likely simply to fade away?
Mr. Ainsworth: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I believe that, within the priorities that we have had to make, that decision had to be taken. We carried out the reserves review, but I understand the importance of the offer—we are talking about volunteers, and we have to make sure that we maintain the commitment of volunteers, otherwise we will lose them. I fully understand that point.
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East) (Con): The information that I have, which I believe to be accurate, is that the reason for the cut in funding for the Territorial Army is that Regular Army recruitment has exceeded expectation and that funds have to be found somewhere in the land budget to pay for the training of that extra recruitment. Is that true? If it is not, why is the decision on the cut in TA funding being taken so late in the year?
Mr. Ainsworth: No one—neither my predecessor nor I—has tried, in the circumstances that we have faced, to discourage the recruitment opportunity that the Army has had. Yes, of course there are financial circumstances. Recruitment to the Regular Army has been so successful over a period of time. I do not think that Conservative Front Benchers would, on reflection, have taken another decision; if they had been in the position of my predecessor or me at various points of this year, I do not think that they would have said no. When the opportunity and need were there, recruitment was allowed to progress. That is the priority, and it is also the Chief of the General Staff’s priority.
Mr. Arbuthnot: By and large, there is cross-party agreement in the House about the priorities for what we devote to defence and about the priorities within defence.
15 Oct 2009 : Column 472
However, the Government have taken two profoundly wrong decisions. The first was to reduce spending on research and technology. The second was to cut funding to the reserves. That is profoundly wrong, and it will have long-term consequences for the armed forces.
Mr. Ainsworth: As I have said, we have to try to be mindful of permanent damage to our reserves and of protecting our research and development. We cannot completely sell tomorrow to pay for today. However, today is the pressing need. Afghanistan has to be the main effort and I do not think that any Conservative Member genuinely disagrees with that in principle.
Mr. Swire: I pay tribute to the fantastic work being done by the medics at Camp Bastion, where our wounded are receiving first-class treatment. A lot of the medical staff there are reservists themselves. Is the Secretary of State absolutely certain that the effective freeze on TA training and recruitment will not endanger the services that we will be able to offer in future to our wounded at Camp Bastion?
Mr. Ainsworth: I am certain that those facilities will not be put at risk in any way, and I will continue to satisfy myself on that point. I know the huge contribution that reserves play in medical services. It varies with deployments, but generally speaking it involves a high proportion.
Mr. Angus MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP): I am informed that the Scottish battalions have to find £4 million of cuts over a two-week period. Does the Secretary of State not feel that we are spoiling the ship for a ha’porth of tar? Will not the soldiers and reservists walk out, so that they will not be there to call on in future?
Mr. Ainsworth: I do not think that they will. I hope that they do not and that the hon. Gentleman does not encourage them to. I do not think that he can credibly argue against the idea that Afghanistan should be the main effort.
Later still, a sever savaging from Dr Liam Fox:
The situation with our reserve forces generally, and the TA especially, is worse than in other areas. Eighteen thousand members of our reserve forces, most of whom were from the TA, have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2002, and we are extremely fortunate as a nation to have had those reserve forces available to us. However, the Government’s treatment of the reserve forces is unforgivable. In 1997, the establishment figure for the TA was 59,000. Today it is 38,500, even though the current strength is 28,920.
We learned last April that thousands more TA positions would be cut from the establishment figure. According to the Government’s latest figures, 12 out of the 14 TA infantry battalions are under strength. On 28 April, in a statement to which he has referred, the Secretary of State said:
“Initial training will be restructured so that new recruits receive sufficient military skills to participate in their units’ collective training within six months of joining, and are fully trained and eligible for mobilisation in three years. Routine training will also be reviewed and sufficient man training days allocated to ensure that annual military competency standards can be achieved by all.”—[ Official Report, 28 April 2009; Vol. 491, c. 702.]
As several hon. Members have already pointed out, we have now learned that training for all members of the TA who are not going to Afghanistan in the next year is going to be cut. The operational budget for the TA for this financial year was £38 million. We now know that it is going to be cut to around £23 million. That will have a very negative impact on the long-term readiness of the TA and long-term recruitment.
Let me give the House a graphic example. A young man sent me an email today. It states:
“I have always had an interest in the armed forces so at the freshers fair this year”—
15 Oct 2009 : Column 483
at King’s college—
“I jumped at the chance to join the London University Officer Training Corps, not only would I be trained by the military, develop my leadership skills but I would also get paid — always a good thing as a student struggling to pay a loan!...So after successfully getting in through the rigorous interviews and selection weekend (held in norfolk) I arrived for my first training evening, excited, keen and willing to learn! We were sat down in the hall and the Major walked out and announced bluntly — ‘There will be NO pay for any training officers this year.’ He went on to tell us about how the whole Army was facing a cut back. I think this is outrageous! We’re fighting two large wars, as training officers we should be seen as the next generation...properly respected and paid!”
The Government are willing to spend £12 billion on a pointless VAT cut to support their political reputation, but they are unwilling to spend £20 million to train the TA while we are at war in Afghanistan. That shows a very twisted set of priorities. The Government need to understand that for many in the TA, the TA is a habit: break the habit, break the TA. That is exactly what their proposals will do.
For our defence policy to be successful, we must have a clear strategy, defined objectives and the necessary military capabilities. Too often, this Government have simply not been up to the task. They are losing support among the public for the mission in Afghanistan, because they do not tell them why we need to be there in terms of our clear national security priorities. They are not making clear what losing would mean and they are not clearly defining what success would look like. We need better supplied forces in Afghanistan, with better spares and equipment.
Ultimately, the question is how much we value our forces. The TA decision is disgraceful and penny-pinching, and it is a shameful way to treat the volunteers in the TA. It may save £20 million, but the Government are willing to spend any amount to bail out their reputation in the middle of an economic crisis of their own making. In Afghanistan and elsewhere, whether dealing with equipment or our forces, if we will the ends, we must will the means. Half of what is needed will not buy us half a victory. Our armed forces deserve so much better than they are getting from this Government
OTCs come up later still:
2.53 pm
Mr. James Arbuthnot (North-East Hampshire) (Con): Yesterday the moving roll call read out by the Prime Minister of those who have died in Afghanistan over the last few months held the attention of the country, and I hope that the poignant letter read out by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) about the death of Kyle Adams did the same. These are men and women who will be honoured for ever. I hope that we shall also be able to remember for ever, and honour during their lives, those who have been wounded in body, in spirit or in mind, because that is something of which we often fail to take sufficient account.
We also heard yesterday from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North-East Milton Keynes (Mr. Lancaster) about the curtailment of his Territorial Army training. That was very important, but today, shortly before I came into the Chamber, I received a
15 Oct 2009 : Column 496
message from my daughter. She is a university undergraduate, and last weekend she went to join the officer training corps at her university. Using the words young people employ, she described the weekend as “mental” and “absolutely incredible.” She joined up with enthusiasm. Just before I entered the Chamber, I received a message from her saying that she will not be paid for any training but that it is expected that paid training will recommence in April. I do not know how much reliance we can put on such an expectation.
Mr. Soames: I am the honorary colonel of the Bristol university OTC, and I have just received a message from the commanding officer that that is, indeed, the situation.
Mr. Arbuthnot: I must confess that my daughter is at Bristol university, and I shall instruct her to pay due respect to the colonel.
Ann Winterton (Congleton) (Con): I am not the commanding officer of anything, but I can assure my right hon. Friend that a member of one of the Yorkshire Territorial Army units has informed me that they will be allowed—indeed, encouraged—to continue with the TA but they will not be paid. I also join my right hon. Friend in bemoaning the cuts to the OTC because my second oldest grandson is at Exeter university and, like my right hon. Friend’s daughter, he will be adversely affected.
Back to the TA, later on:
Mr. Soames: Will the hon. Lady forgive me for a moment?
Secondly, on the Territorial Army, Lieutenant-General Sir Hew Pike, a former inspector-general of the TA, wrote a letter to The Times last week, which he started like this:
“Sir, The decision to suspend training and matches would quickly spell the death knell of a football or cricket club. So it is with the Territorial Army (TA), which relies on regular training activity to develop and sustain skills and morale.”
He is of course completely right. Culling TA training days to the extent that the Ministry of Defence is will result in an under-trained TA, with soldiers deploying on operations who are not properly prepared. It will result also in major retention issues for the TA. After all, why should people remain committed to an organisation that appears to show such a callous lack of commitment to them? That, in turn, will undo much of the substantial investment that has been made in the TA, lower confidence in TA soldiers among their counterparts and the chain of command, and challenge the ability of the Ministry of Defence to sustain high-tempo operations in Afghanistan in the medium term.
15 Oct 2009 : Column 503
The British Army in the field simply could not survive without the extraordinary input of the TA. For example, as far as the Defence Medical Services are concerned, the Public Accounts Committee report published this week states that the annual operational requirement for anaesthetists is 108, and that there are 45 deployable regulars. The balance is made up by Territorials. Presumably, the Minister will exempt medical staff from the cuts to TA training.
Part of the speech from that doughty champion of the TA, Julian Brazier MP TD:
4.35pm
Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con): I cannot pay my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon) enough of a tribute for the remarkable speech that he has just made.
Mr. Soames: Brilliant!
Mr. Brazier: In fact, we have had several outstanding speeches, including the one by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames).
The bulk of the debate has focused, rightly, on Afghanistan, and I want to put on record how incredibly proud the men and women of Canterbury are of the 5th Battalion the Royal Scottish Regiment (Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders), who were recently given the freedom of the city, and of our own Territorial Army unit, the 3rd Battalion Princess of Wales Royal Regiment. In recent deployments, the Argylls had one killed and several wounded, while one Territorial was severely wounded.
Many years ago, when I was slimmer and fitter, I was privileged to serve in the Territorial Army for 13 years. Before the debate, I looked for my regimental tie in my palatial second home—over the Elephant and Castle public house—but I seem to have lost it. Nevertheless, I want to focus on the crisis facing the TA as a result of the deeply unwelcome decision that has been made by the Government.
At one point during the deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, reservists—most of them Territorials—accounted for one fifth of the force in Iraq and for one eighth of the force in Afghanistan. Given that our reserves are very small—they make up only one fifth of our total manpower—and that they are people with civilian jobs, that is truly astonishing. A total of 15 Territorials and one air reservist have been killed in the operations.
These people did not come from nowhere. They did not walk off the street. Most were people with busy civilian jobs, but they chose to spend their evenings and weekends in draughty drill halls and on exercises to prepare for deployment. Often, that choice compromised their civilian careers and their family lives, and the same can be said for the many people involved in training them who did not themselves get the opportunity to deploy. I cannot stress enough how much the TA will be devastated if it really turns out that, for five and a half months, there is no training for anyone apart from those due to go on operations.
The essence of any voluntary organisation—be it a charity, a football club, a political party or part of the volunteer forces—is that it has to be led by high-quality people willing to make the sacrifice year in and year out. The Government’s proposal sends an appalling message.
I have a huge regard for the hon. Member for Harlow (Bill Rammell), who is Minister of State, and for the Secretary of State. They have been generous to my
15 Oct 2009 : Column 522
all-party group and given us privileged access. We are just negotiating a date for the Minister to come and address us. For that reason, I very much hope that he will be able to take the edge of that appalling proposal.
Earlier, I was one of the people who pointed out that Sir David Richards was a regular. I have never been privileged to meet him, but I know quite a number of people who know him well. Every one of them believes him to be a really outstanding soldier. His command of the operation in Sierra Leone—one of the comparatively few wars that we have participated in to have been swift, successful and extraordinarily well handled—was a model.
The fact remains, however, that generals advise, Ministers decide. In 1921, Sir Henry Wilson was an extraordinarily distinguished predecessor of Sir David Richards. He had been Chief of the Imperial General Staff since the final year of the first world war. As Secretary of State for War, Sir Winston Churchill, who then suffered under the considerable disadvantage that he was deeply unpopular because he had been blamed for the Dardanelles campaign, faced down Sir Henry Wilson when he proposed disbanding the Territory Army and flatly told him that he was wrong.
Much more recently, we have had two very clear indications of the absolute inability of the Regular Army to handle the TA—one was the catastrophic shambles of the way in which the mobilisation for the Balkans campaign was handled. Just after the decision was taken to make a huge cut in TA numbers, vast numbers of Territorials received the most disorganised call-out notices. Unbelievably, the same thing was repeated in the first stage of the Iraq conflict. That was why the Government took the very wise decision to have a two-star officer who was a Territorial with a civilian job to advise them, so that they got advice directly from the horse’s mouth. The Duke of Westminster was the first holder of the post.
I should like to make a wider point, although I am conscious of the time. Again and again, we have failed to understand where the next threat will come from. In 1914, the Commons and the country were gripped with a sense of crisis because Ireland seemed to be sliding into war, with arms being raced into both Protestant and Catholic communities. Only at the very last moment, we realised that the real threat to the country came from the continent. A week before the Argentine invasion of the Falklands, most people in this country had no idea that we even had a garrison there. Three months before Saddam Hussein invaded Iraq, we heard restated that there was no question of sending armoured forces out of area. On 10 September 2001, anyone who had said that we would go to war in Afghanistan would have been thought out of his mind.
The truth is that we must keep capabilities alive that are not needed on current operations—that is absolutely fundamental—and when we face desperate pressures on the defence budget, reserve forces are the best way of doing so. There is no reason why the Navy’s mine clearing capability is all manned by regular naval personnel. Historically, the vast majority of them were reservists. There is no reason why we should not have one or two armoured brigades in the Territorial Army. Do we really believe that we will deploy Regular Army air defence units in the near future against an opponent with a superior air force? We need all those capabilities
15 Oct 2009 : Column 523
and they could be provided much more cheaply in the reserve forces, but they need the opportunity to train at evenings and weekends and be paid to do so.
Last one to mention the Reserves in the Debate:
5.30 pm
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East) (Con):
Huge concern was expressed about the threat to future reserves. Apart from the robust comments of the shadow Secretary of State, we heard contributions from the Chairman of the Defence Committee, from my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Sussex and for East Devon and especially from my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), who has shown a long dedication to the cause of the reserves. When the Minister replies, will he tell us whether the Government will guarantee first not to extend the non-payment of the Territorial Army beyond this six-month period and, secondly, not to extend it to the Army Cadet Force as well? must stress to Ministers that people in the reserve forces do it not for the money, but for the training and the love of it. My own modest career as a seaman in the Royal Naval Reserve would not have appealed to me if I had not had a ship to go to sea on at the weekends as part of my training. If such training is cut off from
15 Oct 2009 : Column 537
people for six months, we may well find that, even if the tap is turned on again at the end of the process, such crews are no longer available.
Andrew Mackinlay: The hon. Gentleman has raised the subject of the number of Members who went in to bat today. I have been silent for a variety of reasons and I have been in and out of the Chamber, but I want to express my concern and, I think, that of many other Labour Members about the threat that has been posed. It is a narrow but important point. I accept that we can probably be reassured about the resources available for the training of the Territorial Army and other reserve forces, but I hope that the Minister can reassure us about that, particularly in relation to the Army but also in relation to the Royal Naval Reserve.
Dr. Lewis: As always, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I am only sorry that he was not present to contribute more fully to the debate. The preparation of reserves to go into the front line is a continuum. If a major segment of the training process is removed, that will work its way through the system so that when it is necessary to move on to the next section of the continuum, there will be nothing but a black hole. That is the threat to which the Government have exposed our reserves with this penny-pinching and unjustified measure
Closing remarks by Ministers:
5.46 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Bill Rammell): We have had a good and well-informed debate, which has demonstrated the strong degree of cross-party support that there is in the House for the armed forces. In every contribution, there has been a palpable recognition of the heroic, professional and hugely competent job our armed forces do on behalf of all of us. We are enormously in their debt.
In the time available to me, I shall try to respond to as many as possible of the points made in the debate. The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) started by raising an issue that many other hon. Members have also raised: the position of the Territorial Army. Let me be very clear that the change was recommended by the service chiefs. It was accepted by Ministers because, as the Secretary of State rightly pointed out, Afghanistan is our main priority and it is crucial that we redeploy resources to that main priority, but that does not mean that any member of the reserves will be deployed without appropriate pre-deployment training. Let me make it clear that no reservist will have to pay for their pre-deployment training and there is no cut to that pre-deployment training. I say that clearly for the record
15 Oct 2009 : Column 539
because the Leader of the Opposition tried to paint a very different picture at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday. It is important that we debate the issues based on the facts.
Dr. Fox: The Minister says the purpose of the cuts is to make money available for the front line in Afghanistan, but we are repeatedly told that the Treasury is fully funding the campaign in Afghanistan from the Treasury reserve. If that is the case, why are we cutting core MOD functions?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Bill Rammell):
……………………We have had a good and well- respect the role played by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) in the all-party group (Note: reference to the All Party Parliamentary Reserve Forces Group, chaired by JB) and the substantive work that he does on reserve issues. We met during the summer—as has happened with the Secretary of State on previous occasions—and my office, as he knows, is urgently trying to agree dates with him and his group. I understand the concern. We need to talk and I will hear his representations. I also very much agreed with his underlying point about the lack of predictability of 9/11, Iraq and the Falklands. One thing that I think we should learn from history is that we have not been very good at predicting the military future. I think that that was the point that he was trying to make. That lesson should be borne in mind for the future SDR.
OldSnowy
- Posts: 3129
- Joined: Jul 13, 2003
- Location: Noyades Manor, Cawston
-
Re: Savings Measures - the Official Line
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 9:09 am
Dry_Clean_Only:
smallbrownprivates:
Any clarification yet on if training for Ops include UK Ops?
It's being assessed at present by 2 Sig Bde and Land Forces, expect something early next week.
Unless it's been bought forward, the GoC and the Bde OC have a meeting at the end of next week, so it'll be the week after before we hear.
looktowindward- Posts: 178
- Joined: Jun 08, 2005
-
Re: Savings Measures - the Official Line
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 9:14 am
OldSnowy:
Let me give the House a graphic example. A young man sent me an email today. It states:
“I have always had an interest in the armed forces so at the freshers fair this year”—
15 Oct 2009 : Column 483
at King’s college—
“I jumped at the chance to join the London University Officer Training Corps, not only would I be trained by the military, develop my leadership skills but I would also get paid — always a good thing as a student struggling to pay a loan!...So after successfully getting in through the rigorous interviews and selection weekend (held in norfolk) I arrived for my first training evening, excited, keen and willing to learn! We were sat down in the hall and the Major walked out and announced bluntly — ‘There will be NO pay for any training officers this year.’ He went on to tell us about how the whole Army was facing a cut back. I think this is outrageous! We’re fighting two large wars, as training officers we should be seen as the next generation...properly respected and paid!”
“I have always had an interest in the armed forces so at the freshers fair this year”—
15 Oct 2009 : Column 483
at King’s college—
“I jumped at the chance to join the London University Officer Training Corps, not only would I be trained by the military, develop my leadership skills but I would also get paid — always a good thing as a student struggling to pay a loan!...So after successfully getting in through the rigorous interviews and selection weekend (held in norfolk) I arrived for my first training evening, excited, keen and willing to learn! We were sat down in the hall and the Major walked out and announced bluntly — ‘There will be NO pay for any training officers this year.’ He went on to tell us about how the whole Army was facing a cut back. I think this is outrageous! We’re fighting two large wars, as training officers we should be seen as the next generation...properly respected and paid!”
If the young man quoted by Dr Fox had actually signed on, then I think we may have a splendid contender for the fastest ever breach of the Communicating in Public DIN: join the Armed Forces in the evening, email the Opposition in the morning.
If only he was in the URNU - could have the makings of a future First Sea Lord...
OllieReeder
- Posts: 543
- Joined: Jan 12, 2007
-
Re: Savings Measures - the Official Line
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 9:49 am
OllieReeder:
OldSnowy:
Let me give the House a graphic example. A young man sent me an email today. It states:
“I have always had an interest in the armed forces so at the freshers fair this year”—
15 Oct 2009 : Column 483
at King’s college—
“I jumped at the chance to join the London University Officer Training Corps, not only would I be trained by the military, develop my leadership skills but I would also get paid — always a good thing as a student struggling to pay a loan!...So after successfully getting in through the rigorous interviews and selection weekend (held in norfolk) I arrived for my first training evening, excited, keen and willing to learn! We were sat down in the hall and the Major walked out and announced bluntly — ‘There will be NO pay for any training officers this year.’ He went on to tell us about how the whole Army was facing a cut back. I think this is outrageous! We’re fighting two large wars, as training officers we should be seen as the next generation...properly respected and paid!”
“I have always had an interest in the armed forces so at the freshers fair this year”—
15 Oct 2009 : Column 483
at King’s college—
“I jumped at the chance to join the London University Officer Training Corps, not only would I be trained by the military, develop my leadership skills but I would also get paid — always a good thing as a student struggling to pay a loan!...So after successfully getting in through the rigorous interviews and selection weekend (held in norfolk) I arrived for my first training evening, excited, keen and willing to learn! We were sat down in the hall and the Major walked out and announced bluntly — ‘There will be NO pay for any training officers this year.’ He went on to tell us about how the whole Army was facing a cut back. I think this is outrageous! We’re fighting two large wars, as training officers we should be seen as the next generation...properly respected and paid!”
If the young man quoted by Dr Fox had actually signed on, then I think we may have a splendid contender for the fastest ever breach of the Communicating in Public DIN: join the Armed Forces in the evening, email the Opposition in the morning.
If only he was in the URNU - could have the makings of a future First Sea Lord...
Ollie, I'm open to correction but even members of the armed forces are entitled to correspond (within limits, OPSEC, PERSEC etc.) with their representatiove in parliament in a private capacity. I'm sure the author couldn't realise that Dr. Fox would read it into the public record.
What is specifically mentioned in the DIN is contributions to forums such as this. Hands up anyone who has sought permission to post on ARRSE?
edited for mong spelling.
Deadreckon
- Posts: 324
- Joined: Dec 17, 2008
- Location: The Fatherland
-
Re: Savings Measures - the Official Line
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 10:06 am
Deadreckon:
OllieReeder:
OldSnowy:
Let me give the House a graphic example. A young man sent me an email today. It states:
“I have always had an interest in the armed forces so at the freshers fair this year”—
15 Oct 2009 : Column 483
at King’s college—
“I jumped at the chance to join the London University Officer Training Corps, not only would I be trained by the military, develop my leadership skills but I would also get paid — always a good thing as a student struggling to pay a loan!...So after successfully getting in through the rigorous interviews and selection weekend (held in norfolk) I arrived for my first training evening, excited, keen and willing to learn! We were sat down in the hall and the Major walked out and announced bluntly — ‘There will be NO pay for any training officers this year.’ He went on to tell us about how the whole Army was facing a cut back. I think this is outrageous! We’re fighting two large wars, as training officers we should be seen as the next generation...properly respected and paid!”
“I have always had an interest in the armed forces so at the freshers fair this year”—
15 Oct 2009 : Column 483
at King’s college—
“I jumped at the chance to join the London University Officer Training Corps, not only would I be trained by the military, develop my leadership skills but I would also get paid — always a good thing as a student struggling to pay a loan!...So after successfully getting in through the rigorous interviews and selection weekend (held in norfolk) I arrived for my first training evening, excited, keen and willing to learn! We were sat down in the hall and the Major walked out and announced bluntly — ‘There will be NO pay for any training officers this year.’ He went on to tell us about how the whole Army was facing a cut back. I think this is outrageous! We’re fighting two large wars, as training officers we should be seen as the next generation...properly respected and paid!”
If the young man quoted by Dr Fox had actually signed on, then I think we may have a splendid contender for the fastest ever breach of the Communicating in Public DIN: join the Armed Forces in the evening, email the Opposition in the morning.
If only he was in the URNU - could have the makings of a future First Sea Lord...
Ollie, I'm open to correction but even members of the armed forces are entitled to correspond (within limits, OPSEC, PERSEC etc.) with their representatiove in parliament in a private capacity. I'm sure the author couldn't realise that Dr. Fox would read it into the public record.
What is specifically mentioned in the DIN is contributions to forums such as this. Hands up anyone who has sought permission to post on ARRSE?
edited for mong spelling.
Fair enough DR - one could say it depends on whether he wrote to Dr Fox in his capacity as a constituency MP (unstated) or his capacity as Shadow Defence Secretary (inferred but not explicit). One of those grey areas that the DIN, I suspect, deliberately avoids; bit like the whole issue of Reservists as Parliamentarians. If you ever want to read about REAL bloodshed in the House over the TA, I commend to you the saga of 2Lt Duncan Sandys MP in 1938, outing the chronic failures of equipping the TA Anti-Aircraft Division. Hore-Belisha, the War Secretary, wanted to prosecute him under OSA, whereupon the Speaker countered with a threat of Contempt of the House for Hore-Belisha if he tried doing Sandys for words spoken under Privilege. Mexican standoff ensued.
Anyway - let us therefore not charge the young man with breaching the DIN, but nevertheless commend him for his debut performance...
OllieReeder- Posts: 543
- Joined: Jan 12, 2007
-
Re: Savings Measures - the Official Line
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 5:07 pm
OpsSuper:
BORO_LAD:
TSC(A) and TSC(B) will still happen, what you have been told is wrong, question your CoC
Hmm....That's proper confusing... Will need to check I didn't get wrong end of stick. ROSO seemed pretty clear mind....
BTW, are you still local to Teesside or exiled?
I live in the NE, whats your unit, you can pm me if you prefer
BORO_LAD
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Jun 22, 2005
-
Re: Savings Measures - the Official Line
Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 2:43 am
OldSnowy's Hansard is interesting
Ainsworth did not come up with this
(Mr. Ainsworth: “He is a regular and therefore cannot be trusted”?—I think that we have to guard against that! I have said to him that I know he is a regular, and I have got my eye on him, but he is running the Army and appears to be a pretty competent guy. I have to take some advice about his priority, and I agreed with him)
We are held in contempt, we always were "STAB", and always will be.
" I need some dosh off the system"
"No problem I'll take it off the STABS"
Such a parcel of rogues in one nation
Ainsworth did not come up with this
(Mr. Ainsworth: “He is a regular and therefore cannot be trusted”?—I think that we have to guard against that! I have said to him that I know he is a regular, and I have got my eye on him, but he is running the Army and appears to be a pretty competent guy. I have to take some advice about his priority, and I agreed with him)
We are held in contempt, we always were "STAB", and always will be.
" I need some dosh off the system"
"No problem I'll take it off the STABS"
Such a parcel of rogues in one nation
skillatarms- Posts: 2
- Joined: Sep 17, 2009
-
Re: Savings Measures - the Official Line
Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 6:09 pm
Bug-out!:
DjDangle:
I don't see why people are so concerned. Blame the government and not the TA.
TA will still get 100% of my support and if that means reduced training for the next 6 months, so be it, nothing that will affect PT in your own time...
TA will still get 100% of my support and if that means reduced training for the next 6 months, so be it, nothing that will affect PT in your own time...
DJ - I agree with you entirely.
My unit will be running some training early next year, but until then I can't see what the fuss really is about. So we won't have any weekends during November to January, but these are usually poorly attended given the weather and some are a little "jaded" after camp.
Unless you are keen/have no life or are a bounty hunter
sig1
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Oct 10, 2009
- Location: portsmouth
-
Re: Savings Measures - the Official Line
Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 6:25 pm
Plant-Pilot:
Rocket_Scientist:
If as the times says there are about 19k trained members of the TA who would normally get their 1k + bounty.....can you see where this is going?....that would add up to remarkably like the 20million missing from our pay budget. Wouldnt it have been much less damaging to eliminate bounties this year than stop for 5 months ?
I suppose its the old "wrong pot of money" argument.
I suppose its the old "wrong pot of money" argument.
You are right, if 19,000 TA soldiers were paid a 5 year bounty of £1500, it would cost £28,500,000..... Bingo! They want a saving of £20 million. If they turn up and continue training, with pay, but give up their bounty, they make the same savings, don't suffer skill fade and don't lose soldiers from them getting disillusioned and finding something else to do with their time between now and the 10th of April.
No doubt some will complain and give up because they lose their bounty, but not as many as if they lose their pay and bounty, as some will.
sig1- Posts: 24
- Joined: Oct 10, 2009
- Location: portsmouth
-
Re: Savings Measures - the Official Line
Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 7:09 pm
sig1:
Plant-Pilot:
Rocket_Scientist:
If as the times says there are about 19k trained members of the TA who would normally get their 1k + bounty.....can you see where this is going?....that would add up to remarkably like the 20million missing from our pay budget. Wouldnt it have been much less damaging to eliminate bounties this year than stop for 5 months ?
I suppose its the old "wrong pot of money" argument.
I suppose its the old "wrong pot of money" argument.
You are right, if 19,000 TA soldiers were paid a 5 year bounty of £1500, it would cost £28,500,000..... Bingo! They want a saving of £20 million. If they turn up and continue training, with pay, but give up their bounty, they make the same savings, don't suffer skill fade and don't lose soldiers from them getting disillusioned and finding something else to do with their time between now and the 10th of April.
No doubt some will complain and give up because they lose their bounty, but not as many as if they lose their pay and bounty, as some will.
This IS a joke, isn't it ???
Charm_City- Posts: 333
- Joined: Oct 17, 2009
-
Re: Savings Measures - the Official Line
Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 7:24 pm
Is it still possible to train with regulars, if the oppurtunity is there, to acheive bounty qualification, (without bieng paid for the training) or would this be seen as Bounty Hunting ?
FUGAX- Posts: 12
- Joined: Oct 17, 2009
-
Re: Savings Measures - the Official Line
Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 7:38 pm
FUGAX:
Is it still possible to train with regulars, if the oppurtunity is there, to acheive bounty qualification, (without bieng paid for the training) or would this be seen as Bounty Hunting ?
Yes.
Bounty hunting is just doing the minimum required for bounty.
msr
msr
- Posts: 15065
- Joined: Jul 13, 2003
-
Re: Savings Measures - the Official Line
Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 7:40 pm
OllieReeder:
OldSnowy:
Let me give the House a graphic example. A young man sent me an email today. It states:
“I have always had an interest in the armed forces so at the freshers fair this year”—
15 Oct 2009 : Column 483
at King’s college—
“I jumped at the chance to join the London University Officer Training Corps, not only would I be trained by the military, develop my leadership skills but I would also get paid — always a good thing as a student struggling to pay a loan!...So after successfully getting in through the rigorous interviews and selection weekend (held in norfolk) I arrived for my first training evening, excited, keen and willing to learn! We were sat down in the hall and the Major walked out and announced bluntly — ‘There will be NO pay for any training officers this year.’ He went on to tell us about how the whole Army was facing a cut back. I think this is outrageous! We’re fighting two large wars, as training officers we should be seen as the next generation...properly respected and paid!”
“I have always had an interest in the armed forces so at the freshers fair this year”—
15 Oct 2009 : Column 483
at King’s college—
“I jumped at the chance to join the London University Officer Training Corps, not only would I be trained by the military, develop my leadership skills but I would also get paid — always a good thing as a student struggling to pay a loan!...So after successfully getting in through the rigorous interviews and selection weekend (held in norfolk) I arrived for my first training evening, excited, keen and willing to learn! We were sat down in the hall and the Major walked out and announced bluntly — ‘There will be NO pay for any training officers this year.’ He went on to tell us about how the whole Army was facing a cut back. I think this is outrageous! We’re fighting two large wars, as training officers we should be seen as the next generation...properly respected and paid!”
If the young man quoted by Dr Fox had actually signed on, then I think we may have a splendid contender for the fastest ever breach of the Communicating in Public DIN: join the Armed Forces in the evening, email the Opposition in the morning.
(OTCs are your future Officers so abuse them and lose them )
sig1- Posts: 24
- Joined: Oct 10, 2009
- Location: portsmouth
-
Re: Savings Measures - the Official Line
Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 1:23 am
sig1:
OllieReeder:
OldSnowy:
Let me give the House a graphic example. A young man sent me an email today. It states:
“I have always had an interest in the armed forces so at the freshers fair this year”—
15 Oct 2009 : Column 483
at King’s college—
“I jumped at the chance to join the London University Officer Training Corps, not only would I be trained by the military, develop my leadership skills but I would also get paid — always a good thing as a student struggling to pay a loan!...So after successfully getting in through the rigorous interviews and selection weekend (held in norfolk) I arrived for my first training evening, excited, keen and willing to learn! We were sat down in the hall and the Major walked out and announced bluntly — ‘There will be NO pay for any training officers this year.’ He went on to tell us about how the whole Army was facing a cut back. I think this is outrageous! We’re fighting two large wars, as training officers we should be seen as the next generation...properly respected and paid!”
“I have always had an interest in the armed forces so at the freshers fair this year”—
15 Oct 2009 : Column 483
at King’s college—
“I jumped at the chance to join the London University Officer Training Corps, not only would I be trained by the military, develop my leadership skills but I would also get paid — always a good thing as a student struggling to pay a loan!...So after successfully getting in through the rigorous interviews and selection weekend (held in norfolk) I arrived for my first training evening, excited, keen and willing to learn! We were sat down in the hall and the Major walked out and announced bluntly — ‘There will be NO pay for any training officers this year.’ He went on to tell us about how the whole Army was facing a cut back. I think this is outrageous! We’re fighting two large wars, as training officers we should be seen as the next generation...properly respected and paid!”
If the young man quoted by Dr Fox had actually signed on, then I think we may have a splendid contender for the fastest ever breach of the Communicating in Public DIN: join the Armed Forces in the evening, email the Opposition in the morning.
(OTCs are your future Officers so abuse them and lose them )
Message from my CoC when training freeze was announced was DO contact your local MP.
Many thanks to OldSnowy for posting that. One line particularly caught my eye
Quote:
... we have to try to be mindful of permanent damage to our reserves[...]. We cannot completely sell tomorrow to pay for today. However, today is the pressing need.
nochmal_bitte- Posts: 39
- Joined: May 27, 2008
-
Re: Savings Measures - the Official Line
Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 6:56 am
sig1:
This “DIN” does not cover this case as it is already in the public domain and it has no security classification, any one may contact their MP as long as they do not break the O,S,A it is called freedom of speech and I think many people have died to keep this so have a go at some one who is trying to damage this country not protect it.
(OTCs are your future Officers so abuse them and lose them )
(OTCs are your future Officers so abuse them and lose them )
The DIN does cover this case as does the OSA. The DIN covers all contributions to public debate - yes, including posting on Arrse (waves to boss and CO).
Quote:
This Instruction sets out the arrangements that all MoD personnel – military and civilian – must follow if they wish to have contact with the media, or write or speak in public on Defence or related matters.
The OSA also covers this debate - it has nothing to do with "Protective Marking":
Quote:
A person who is or has been a Crown servant or government contractor is guilty of an offence if without lawful authority he makes a damaging disclosure of any information, document or other article relating to defence
So, the question is not PM vs non-PM, it is "damaging" versus "not damaging". We saw how that went in the Damien Green case but is your "career" going to take that much to irreparably damage? The lad who wrote to his MP is probably making a privileged (therefore protected) statement - but neither you nor I are ...
As for "freedom of speech" - we're not in the States. Our entitlement is laid down in Article 11 of the ECHR, as adopted into UK law in the Human Rights Act. I draw your attention to sub-para 2 (my bolds):
Quote:
The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Idrach- Posts: 1842
- Joined: Aug 10, 2007
- Location: Home, for a while.
-
Re: Savings Measures - the Official Line
Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 2:15 pm
Quote:
Well we could stop all retention bounties and resigning bonuses for military personal, that may save the same amount of money if they don’t like it they may leave and join the TA we will welcome them willingly
Quote:
This IS a joke, isn't it ???
Listening to what my husband told me from his briefing last week this is the idea they have come up with should the regs go over manned. it's not just us TA lot that will suffer, the reg's are about to get shafted as well!
I can see them removing our Bounty payments as well as all the other cut backs. This is the 2nd time in as many months that they have reduced our buget after all and our bounty is the only thing we have left to go.
ViperRLC- Posts: 106
- Joined: Jan 15, 2008
-
Re: Savings Measures - the Official Line
Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 7:23 pm
now here a question
If we the TA are not going in to our Centres to train, what will the PSAO, PSI and NRPS, Civ Staff be doing for the next months??
Playing more golf then they do now??
many be they can take our places on the next MOB service??
If we the TA are not going in to our Centres to train, what will the PSAO, PSI and NRPS, Civ Staff be doing for the next months??
Playing more golf then they do now??
many be they can take our places on the next MOB service??
49GREENGRASS- Posts: 6
- Joined: Nov 19, 2007
-
Re: Savings Measures - the Official Line
Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 11:03 am
ViperRLC:
I can see them removing our Bounty payments
I can't - the major reason we have no pension entitlement is because the argue we get bounty in lieu. Stopping bounty is a can of worms they don't want to open, even without the effect on some people's motivation to train.
Andy
ratherbeintobago- Posts: 5
- Joined: Apr 16, 2009
-
All times are GMT
Colour my ARRSE:
| Home
| Sitemap
| Search
| Last 50
| Complain
| Contact
| Advertise
| Help!
| Kit Shop
| Navy Net
| Rear Party
| Jobs
| Yr Acct/Login
| Join ARRSE