British Army: Regimental System

– in the House of Lords at 2:49 pm on 14 September 2004.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Baroness Strange Baroness Strange Crossbench 2:49, 14 September 2004

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they propose to phase out the regimental system in the British Army.

Photo of Lord Bach Lord Bach Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Defence) (Procurement)

My Lords, no. We have no intention of phasing out the regimental system. The value of the regimental system is not in doubt. But it must adapt, as it has done in the past. The changes that we are making reflect the reduction in infantry battalions made possible by the changes to the Northern Ireland commitment and the decision to end the Infantry Arms Plot. I can assure the House that we will maintain famous names, regional identity and traditions wherever possible.

Photo of Baroness Strange Baroness Strange Crossbench

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his courteous and predictably evasive reply. Does he agree—I am sure that the answer to this will be da—that we have the best armed services in the world and that the excellence of our Army is due to the splendid calibre of its officers and men and to their close affection for the family regimental system, as it is now? Is he aware—the answer to this may be nyet—that I have strong family connections with the Grenadier Guards, the Coldstream Guards, the Scots Guards, the Welsh Guards and the Black Watch and that I totally support the Scottish regimental system as it is at the moment?

Photo of Lord Bach Lord Bach Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Defence) (Procurement)

My Lords, I knew that I was not looking forward to answering this Question. Of course, I agree with the noble Baroness that our Armed Forces are the best in the world. I say "of course" because I think that events over many, many years, including over the past year in particular, have shown that. Of course I accept the value of the regimental system.

However, I must tell the noble Baroness that changes to the Army's infantry structure do not automatically mean that the history, traditions and contribution of famous regiments will disappear or cannot be incorporated within a new structure. It is a fact that very few of our regiments and corps exist today in exactly the same form as they did in the past. There has been a constant process of change and regeneration and that is why our Armed Forces are the best in the world. New organisations are being created in them, fostering previous military renown while developing their own traditions and reputations to engender the loyalty and camaraderie which are right at the centre of our excellence.

Photo of Lord Crickhowell Lord Crickhowell Conservative

My Lords, I had the honour many years ago to serve in the Royal Welch Fusiliers, now serving in Iraq. Over the past decade at least, they have had an outstanding record of recruitment, based on roots in geography, community and culture. While welcoming what the Minister said about the importance of regional connections, does he agree that any attempt to merge regiments into so-called large regiments which do not have common links of that kind will end in a disastrous reduction in both the quality of those regiments and the recruiting record?

Photo of Lord Bach Lord Bach Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Defence) (Procurement)

My Lords, of course we want the new merged regiments to have links with each other; that is important. In future, those individual battalions will be fixed by role, and largely by location, and in any new structure the Army will seek to retain existing geographical links. We believe that that is likely to result in even greater identity between the recruiting area and the location in which people serve. I repeat, because it is important to the House in particular, that our aim is to ensure that the links are maintained wherever possible.

Photo of Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever Deputy Chief Whip, Whips, Shadow Minister, International Affairs

My Lords, does the Minister agree at this time of great uncertainty in terms of national security that to cut four infantry battalions with their extensive and ever-changing commitments is an act of dangerous folly?

Photo of Lord Bach Lord Bach Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Defence) (Procurement)

No, my Lords; I do not agree with the noble Lord. We are restructuring the Army and the infantry in particular to increase significantly the manpower available for expeditionary operations. In that respect, the restructuring of the infantry about which the noble Lord asked is made possible by progress made towards a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. Such progress is predicated on full normalisation being secured in Northern Ireland. If that does not happen, we shall keep what we propose under review. Because of that, we have been able to reduce the number of infantry battalions in the Province by four, a move which, owing to the need to take battalions through this task, has freed up 16 battalions for use on other tasks.

The manpower freed up by that move will be redistributed across the Army, not only to develop more robust and resilient establishments in the infantry but also to bolster the most heavily specialist areas, such as logistics, engineers, signallers and intelligence. What is crucial to all of this is the phasing out of the traditional practice of arms plotting. That will further increase, we believe, as does the Army Board, the efficiency and availability of Army resources.

Photo of Lord Maginnis of Drumglass Lord Maginnis of Drumglass Crossbench

My Lords, do the Government recognise the regional significance and necessity of ensuring that at least one regiment of the line is maintained in each constituent area of the United Kingdom?

Photo of Lord Bach Lord Bach Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Defence) (Procurement)

My Lords, we know very well our obligations and the necessities around the whole of the United Kingdom. As I say, because of progress in Northern Ireland, it has been the considered view that four battalions that are presently serving there do not need to remain there.

Photo of Lord Garden Lord Garden Liberal Democrat

My Lords, I welcome very much the Government's moves towards getting rid of arms plotting and the inflexibility and inefficiencies associated with it. But, having said that, for all the reasons given by other noble Lords, we are uncertain, and I should like to know the Minister's view. Is he certain about the effect on recruitment and retention at a time when our forces are employed in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Balkans and Africa? Should we not just keep infantry numbers static, even if we reorganise, until we see how things work out?

Photo of Lord Bach Lord Bach Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Defence) (Procurement)

My Lords, I think that I have already answered that point. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support for the abolition of arms plotting. He, with his experience, will know that it has served its purpose. We believe that there will be great benefits in having battalions based in one location rather than having to move around, as they do regularly. That in itself, in time, will help recruitment. Of course, we are carefully monitoring recruitment at present. The record has been much improved in the past few years, perhaps because of the amount of activity. However, the noble Lord is quite right; we have to watch carefully and ensure that any new measures we implement do not affect recruitment. We think that this measure will improve it.

Photo of Lord Morris of Aberavon Lord Morris of Aberavon Labour

My Lords, I make the same declaration as the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. Does the Minister accept that regimental loyalty, particularly if based on areas, once lost is not easily replaced? Will he be more precise as regards what he proposes to do? If these regiments mean anything, will not such a change lead to a dilution of regimental tradition, loyalty and ties, and possibly affect recruitment?

Photo of Lord Bach Lord Bach Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Defence) (Procurement)

My Lords, we do not believe that it will. As I have explained, and as the noble and learned Lord knows well, changes in this system have occurred for many, many years. Since 1958, 54 infantry and 23 cavalry regiments have been the subject of amalgamation, 35 of which occurred after the Options for Change review in 1992. As I understand it, all those succeeded satisfactorily. We shall watch with great care to ensure that the changes we propose do not in any way dilute the regimental system.