Scottish Regiments
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S1M-1932, in the name of David McLetchie, on proposed cuts to the Scottish regiments. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
I ask members who are leaving the chamber to do so quickly and quietly.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament believes that the proposed substantial cuts to the size of both the regular army and the Territorial Army will undermine the efficiency and morale of the British armed forces, damage our military capability and threaten the future of Scotland's historic frontline regiments.
This morning, I had the honour of attending the annual service at the Scottish national war memorial in Edinburgh Castle, in the company of the First Minister and John Swinney. It was a powerful reminder to all of us of the supreme sacrifice made by tens of thousands of Scottish servicemen and servicewomen in two world wars and other conflicts around the globe and of the outstanding contribution made by Scots to our armed services in defence of our freedom and liberty and that of other peoples and nations.
It is therefore timely that today we should debate this motion. I would like to thank those members who have supported it, the amendment lodged by Colin Campbell and the similar motion lodged by my colleagues Brian Monteith and Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.
The motions and the amendment in similar vein were prompted by an internal Ministry of Defence paper that recommends cuts of up to 10 front-line regiments in the British Army and the merger of Scotland's two brigades in the Highlands and Lowlands to form a single headquarters. The paper was leaked to a major national newspaper and stated:
"There is no military justification for retaining two brigade HQs as well as HQ Scotland. Units in Scotland could be effectively and more efficiently commanded by one brigade-sized HQ located at Craigiehall."
The Secretary of State for Defence, Mr Hoon, has claimed that there are
"no plans to change Army force structures because of a lack of resources."
However, Major General Robert Gordon appeared to contradict that by confirming the merger of the highland and lowland brigades, only to retract his confirmation some days later.
The story becomes all the more believable when senior defence sources tell the same newspaper that the executive committee of the Army board had been told not to put any proposals to ministers until after the election so that ministers could maintain plausible deniability on the subject. However, the plans would be proposed "within weeks" of the outcome of the general election.
It is clear that there is a study that proposes cuts to the size of the British Army and that the Labour Government is determined to cover it up until after the election. That, of course, is very much in line with Labour's record in government on the armed forces over the past few years. The size of the Army has shrunk under the present Government, which has reneged on yet another pre-election promise—to increase the size of the Army.
The cuts that are proposed in the MOD paper will have serious implications for Scotland. The two brigade headquarters—of 51 (Highland) Brigade, which is based in Perth, and 52 (Lowland) Brigade, which is based in Edinburgh—not only administer the Regular and Territorial Army units that are under their command, but play a vital role in promoting community links, supporting recruitment and performing civic duties.
The headquarters provide good value for money and are capable of expanding in times of war or adapting in times of crisis, such as the flooding in central Scotland in 1992 and the recent foot-and-mouth outbreak in the Borders. The geography of Scotland demands that, militarily, the Highlands and Lowlands be treated separately. Scotland's regiments are already overstretched and a strong headquarters presence is essential to fight their corner.
On its own, the merger of the highland and lowland brigades would not necessarily lead to the loss of any of our established regiments. However, the Scottish division faces manning problems that leave it vulnerable to further cuts. The merger could be the thin end of the wedge. Once the two brigades are merged, the regiments would be next in line. The Highlanders, the Black Watch and the Royal Scots, all of which are more than 100 men under strength, appear vulnerable to the proposed cuts. They will find it extremely difficult to tackle the current recruitment problems if they lose their distinctive identities.
There being no direct threat to our national security at present, the Army is experiencing severe difficulties with recruitment. At the moment, the benefits of a career in the Army are clearly outweighed by the drawbacks, most of which have been magnified by Her Majesty's Government.
Retention problems are exacerbated by recruitment problems. With fewer recruits, the serving troops are spending more time on tours of duty and less time on training or with their families. That leads to a loss of morale and to exhaustion and makes it more difficult to maintain the high standards of which we are justly proud. Those conditions only serve to make a career in the Army even less appealing to potential new recruits.
I realise that defence is a reserved matter—long may it remain so. However, it affects Scotland directly and the Parliament should be heard in support of our regiments. As usual, Her Majesty's Government is pursuing its agenda by stealth. The proposed cuts pose a real threat to our defence capability, which is overstretched at present. That is why my party is opposed to further cuts. In our determination to resist them, we welcome the support of members of other parties in this Parliament.
The strategic objective of the Army is
"To sustain the capability necessary to achieve operational success."
If we lose any more of our regiments in Scotland, the Army will be unable to achieve that objective.
When I left the House of Commons on dissolution two weeks ago, I assumed that I would not take part in any further parliamentary debates on defence. As David McLetchie said, this is obviously, rightly and properly a UK reserved matter. I therefore find it a little surprising that the Conservative and Unionist Party, of all parties, should raise a debate, in the devolved Scottish Parliament, on the defence of the United Kingdom. However, strange things happen during election campaigns.
I come to the debate as a former member of the House of Commons Defence Select Committee, like one of those crusty old soldiers with very long memories. Indeed, I have some recent memories that lead me to conclude that it is reckless hypocrisy for the Conservatives to try to raise scares about the future of Scottish regiments. Perhaps Mr McLetchie would care to remember the notorious so-called "Options for Change" cuts to our armed forces, which were imposed by a Tory Secretary of State for Defence back in 1992.
Will the member give way?
Sorry—I have only four minutes. Ben Wallace was in the Army, so he probably experienced those cuts.
I will discuss details of the Army in a second but, incidentally, it was a certain Mr Malcolm Rifkind who was Secretary of State for Defence when Rosyth Royal Dockyard was stitched up and its submarine refit work was transferred to Devonport. Meanwhile, the nationalists posed a rather perplexing conundrum: they condemned a decision not to refit nuclear submarines at Rosyth despite the fact that they proposed to keep the submarines out of Scottish waters altogether.
The Labour Government is fulfilling the objectives that are set out in the defence review—to give our armed forces the resources that they need to fulfil the tasks that we ask of them, including the vital peacekeeping roles that I have seen being undertaken in Bosnia and Kosovo. The Labour Government has increased defence expenditure in real terms to reinstate some of the cuts that were imposed by the Tories following the end of the cold war. I know that the Secretary of State for Defence has no intention of reducing the strength of the armed forces. I see that my colleague Lewis Moonie has made it abundantly clear that the allegations that David McLetchie has been talking about are simply not true. Perhaps his motion should have been ruled out of order.
Our responsible approach to our armed forces is in marked contrast to that of the Conservative Party. The Tory Government closed the naval base at Rosyth and took a political decision to take submarine refit work away from Scotland. In 1992, the Tories tried to reduce the number of Scottish infantry battalions from nine to six. They scrapped the 2nd battalion of the Scots Guards; they amalgamated the Gordon Highlanders with the Queen's Own Highlanders; and, unforgivably, in my constituency, they tried to amalgamate the Royal Scots, the 1st regiment of foot of the British Army, with the King's Own Scottish Borderers, just after both of those battalions returned from active service in the Gulf war.
As a Labour member of the Scottish Parliament, I am proud to have been part of the campaign to save the Royal Scots and the KOSB from that last round of Tory defence cuts. I have complete confidence in my colleagues at the MOD and, in particular, Lewis Moonie—our candidate in Kirkcaldy—in safeguarding these matters.
I noted that David McLetchie spent First Minister's question time talking about football; this motion should be dismissed as an epic own goal.
I am delighted to talk about this reserved matter in the Scottish Parliament. I thank the proposer of the motion.
I have no doubt that there will be a Labour denial of any threat to any Scottish or UK regiments. However, a long tradition of regimental loyalty in the Ministry of Defence brings about very well informed leaks from time to time. After the election is over, things may happen.
The MOD has to find £0.5 billion from its own budget to allow for the high-cost equipment that Labour will buy—aircraft carriers and the aircraft for them. There is an increasing possibility of troops returning to the UK from abroad, which will result in accommodation problems in the UK, and there is a major problem with recruitment and retention, to which the politically expedient solution of some people is to combine battalions.
I have never sensed any affection in Labour for the traditions of the regiments. Indeed, as a head teacher, I once was given a verbal order not to let the armed forces into our school; I asked, "Whose?" and was told, "The British," which surprised me.
The UK has worldwide commitments. Arguably, it tries to do too much with insufficient people. I had a conversation last summer with a senior regular officer, who buttonholed me and suggested that if the Army is reduced further, it will fall below the critical mass that is necessary for it to carry out its tasks.
The SNP supports the Scottish regiments. The regiments are built on strong local, family, traditional and emotional ties. Those links die when regiments are disbanded, and often are not transferred when regiments are amalgamated. In short, any further disbandment or amalgamation will exacerbate an already difficult recruiting situation. The SNP is committed to the Scottish regiments as they will form the foundation of the army in the Scottish defence forces.
The Territorial Army is inevitably embroiled in any consideration of cuts. Recent experience of the options that were presented before the strategic defence review revealed that some regulars will sacrifice TA units to safeguard the professionals. Reduced by almost a half in Scotland, the TA has fewer centres and therefore offers less access to young people who might be persuaded to join. As the TA provides around 10 per cent of the Army overseas, that puts an undue burden on a reduced number of employers to allow their staff to go off on TA duties. As the TA provides a route by which many join the Regular Army, any reduction in the TA affects regular recruitment.
Far be it from me to destroy, or even hint at destroying, the consensual nature of members' business debates, but the Tories have a nerve posing as the saviours of the Scottish regiments. In 1945, there were 10 Scottish infantry regiments. Now there are six regular Scottish infantry regiments.
There was a war then.
I know that there was a war. I was alive then. Where was Ben Wallace?
Labour disbanded the Cameronians. The Highland Light Infantry, the Royal Scots Fusiliers, the Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders, the Seaforth Highlanders, the Queen's Own Highlanders and the Gordon Highlanders were all amalgamated or disbanded by Tory Governments. It was so clumsily done that at the time of the Gulf war it was said that there were service personnel out there who received their P45s. In addition, the Royal Scots Greys were amalgamated with the 3rd Carabiniers in 1971, under a Tory Government.
While I have no difficulty supporting the purpose of this debate, I do so with the caveat that the motion is indicative of selective amnesia on the part of the Tories, and that the image that the Tories like to portray as the sole guardians of UK military tradition has been shown by recent history to be deeply flawed.
Now to members who in another place would be described as gallant: I call Mike Rumbles, followed by Ben Wallace.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, as I believe that I may be the MSP with the most experience of army life, having enjoyed 15 years' service in the Army, at home and abroad. In my first posting, I had the privilege of serving at the Scottish infantry depot at Glencorse, which is not far from here, and working with the magnificent seven—the seven regiments of the Scottish infantry division.
I say seven because 21 years ago, when I arrived in Edinburgh, there were seven regiments. Sadly, there are now only six, because the Gordon's and the Queen's Own Highlanders were amalgamated to form the Highlanders. It is sad when any regiment is amalgamated, but times and needs change. Uncomfortable as it is for the Conservatives, I remind them that that amalgamation took place under a Conservative Government in 1994—the pot calling the kettle black comes to mind.
I remember well my 15 years of Army service. I specialised in officers' education, dealing with promotion programmes from lieutenant to captain and captain to major. Ben Wallace, who was laughing earlier, might care to listen. It is unfortunate that while he was a junior officer he and I never met; perhaps I could have taught him something about the real world.
My period of service between 1979 and 1994 coincided with a period of governmental salami slicing. In other words, it was a period when the Government constantly demanded more of the Army and would not agree to an increase in funding to meet the greater tasks. I remind members that I am talking about a period under the previous Conservative Government. Part of my role at that time was to talk to junior officers about strategic studies and to prepare them for their wider role in promoted service.
I am more than surprised to see the motion from the leader of the Conservatives. I would have thought that the Conservatives would be the first to recognise that a change to the structure of our Army is essential if our forces are to reflect modern-day military operations. The Conservatives are always reluctant to face up to reality; they are at it again.
We need fast, modern forces that are designed to work best in a rapid reaction role. Gone are the days—thank goodness—when we needed a field army to fight on the north German plain. I am glad that I need not participate any more in military operations on the north German plain, preparing for general warfare.
We need radical reform and military effectiveness at home and abroad. It is obvious that we will not obtain such reality from the Conservatives, but thank goodness they will not be in a position to salami-slice our armed forces again. I hope that they are out of government for a long time and that it is only their rhetoric that we have to put up with.
I thank the Presiding Officer for letting me speak and David McLetchie for lodging the motion. I also thank The Daily Telegraph, which provided some of the documents to which I will refer, and John Spellar, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, for clarifying the position. I would like to answer John Home Robertson's points.
The regimental system is valuable to any soldier who serves on the front line. For those who are in the teeth arms—the cavalry, the tanks, the artillery or on foot—it is important to have something to bond to. In the battle of Tumbledown in the Falklands, my regiment decided to wear berets rather than helmets, to allow soldiers to identify one another and to show regimental pride, which has often carried people through such dangerous and difficult times.
We hear much about how the Conservatives reduced regiments; they did. I was part of a regiment. I must say to Colin Campbell that it would have been impossible for people in the regiments to receive their P45s during the Gulf war, because "Options for Change" was not announced until after the Gulf war took place, although I grant that there were stories about people receiving such notifications in Bosnia.
We should remember that the reduction was a response to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact. I know that regiments are valuable, but it is often necessary to change our armed forces' capability in response to the threat. That is the key. That is why, after the defeat of the Nazis and the Japanese in 1945, and after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1992, it was important to reduce our capability.
We do not believe in having regiments for regiments' sake, as the SNP sometimes seems to. We do not believe in maintaining armed forces just for parades. We mean to have serious defence forces that can match our foreign policies. That is the danger of the suggested cuts. The proposed cuts or studies—whatever one wants to call them—would not be made because the threat in the rest of the world had reduced or because the situation is easier out there and our foreign policy commitments have lessened. Our commitments have increased in East Timor, Sierra Leone, Bosnia and Kosovo. We are sending more troops to those countries.
As someone who spent time on operations and on the ground, I know that it is important that politicians of all parties learn to match their armed forces capability with their foreign policy goals. What annoys us as soldiers is when we are shoved from pillar to post because President Blair wants to look good or a Prime Minister wants to show that he can conquer the world, without remembering the capability of the armed forces.
What about Malcolm Rifkind?
Malcolm Rifkind saved Mr Home Robertson's local regiment. I did not hear Mr Home Robertson offer congratulations on that. Malcolm Rifkind made the decision that saved the local regiment, while John Home Robertson's party was in opposition—for 18 years.
We should also remember that when Mr Blair announced the purchase of aircraft carriers in 1998, it did not take the brains of an archbishop to work out that the £2 billion that he allocated for them was not enough. Each new aircraft was going to cost between £16 million and £20 million. If Mr Brown has 30 aircraft on an aircraft carrier, he will have to find £0.75 billion. That is the problem.
The cuts are being caused not by a reduction in the threat, but because Mr Brown will give defence no more money. Indeed, Mr Brown does not want to give President Blair big aircraft carriers, as that would make him look good. Mr Brown will find his cuts from the Army.
Rosyth is in Mr Brown's constituency.
If members want to make interjections, they should stand to make them. There have been too many seated interjections in the debate. I ask Mr Wallace to wind up.
The money has to come from somewhere. It worries me that it may well come from the Army. John Home Robertson says that Dr Moonie, the Labour candidate in the Kirkcaldy constituency, can confirm that there are no plans to take the money from there. A letter from John Spellar, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, dated 14 May states:
"Work is underway to consider the location of Brigade Headquarters within the Army as well as their roles and responsibilities."
I also have the Army study document in which some of the changes are proposed. The cuts are not fiction. If Mike Rumbles looks at the document, he will be able to mark the staff writing—in the Army, we were taught how to put together studies and about staff writing. There is an example of that in the document produced by the general officer who proposes the redistribution of brigade headquarters. The cuts exist, in the words of John Spellar and in the Army study. It is important that we do not discard that fact.
A general election is coming up. After it, I would not be surprised if Mr Brown intended to screw the nut, as we say, if he is in power—
He will be.
That is highly unlikely, but if he is, I hope that he will resist the changes to the regiment. I hope that we all do.
The debate is not about threat; it is about money. It is about Mr Blair over-committing on foreign policy and causing strains. It is also about saving our Scottish regiments who have done sterling work in peace and wartime.
Despite his party's history of destroying Scottish regiments, Ben Wallace rightly says that the debate is all to do with money. The threat to the Army, and to the armed services throughout Britain, comes largely from defence spending going the wrong way. Billions are being squandered on nuclear weapons, while the traditional services are underfunded and have been so for years. At least £50 billion has been squandered on rusting nuclear submarines. Many of us who oppose nuclear weapons most certainly do not oppose traditional services, as the British isles will always need them. The SNP would like to see the strength of the traditional services increased.
We need the Army and our Scottish regiments for human conflict, as sadly that will always occur, horribleness being a part of the human condition—some ghastly dictator is always springing up somewhere. Look at how we use and exploit the Army. During the foot-and-mouth crisis, who has been given the dirtiest of the dirty work? It is the Army—"Call in the Army".
I say to my fellow parliamentarians that the Army is seriously under strength in Scotland. The six regiments of the Scottish command—although that title is no longer given, as it is now called HQ2 Division, whatever that means—are under strength. The 1st Battalion Royal Scots is 111 under strength; the 1st Battalion Royal Highland Fusiliers is 66 under strength; the King's Own Scottish Borderers is six under strength; the Black Watch—in which several of my relatives have died over the generations—is 80 under strength. The 1st Battalion Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders is 27 under strength. The 1st Battalion the Highlanders is 118 under strength. The Scottish command—as I will still call it—is a total of 408 under strength. That is quite alarming.
Apart from anything else, the Army gives excellent training to young people. There are many serious problems. At one stage, the British Army was losing more men—young men—to suicide than to armed conflict. I was involved in a battle with the Ministry of Defence to gain £400,000 for an anti-bullying helpline. Many things need to be done.
We have heard the denials that anything horrid will happen to the Scottish regiments. Our message should be that we trust the Army, but we do not trust the Ministry of Defence. Only people who still believe in the tooth fairy would trust a statement from the Ministry of Defence in London. I have found that out from many campaigns over the years—right back to the "Save the Argylls" campaign.
It is our duty to protect the Army, which does so much to protect us. It is our duty to protect our Scottish regiments, which over the generations have lost proportionately more soldiers than any other grouping in the British isles. Let us remind ourselves that the Parliament would not be here today were it not for the Army. Indeed, democracy would not have survived in these islands without the Army. I ask members to regard the regiments with respect at all times and to fight for those who fight so hard for us.
In supporting David McLetchie's motion, I should mention a past interest as a Scottish soldier and as an officer for just on 10 years in the Cameronians (Scottish Rifles).
John Home Robertson may be surprised that we raise the subject, but we do so for a very good reason. A past Labour Government not only axed three quarters of the Territorial Army but eliminated a famous Scottish regiment. I should know because it was my own regiment, the Cameronians (Scottish Rifles).
I well remember that terrible day when the regiment had to march out to its disbandment. I put a line through my diary—I was an advocate—so that I could be one of the few to witness the sad and sorry scene. What did I find when I arrived at the lonely moor, near the village of Douglas? The whole hillside was alive with thousands and thousands of men and women—some 22,000 of them. I could see the tall figure of Lord Reith, the founder of the BBC; a platoon of generals, as the Cameronians had had more generals than any other regiment; and Mrs Winnie Ewing, the newly elected MP for Hamilton. When the service took place, the minister at the altar addressed the soldiers. He said, "You, who have never been defeated in battle, are eliminated by the stroke of a pen in Whitehall".
Behind closed doors and in the utmost secrecy, individuals, no doubt, will be planning more stokes of the pen. They would be wise to remember that, after the disbandment of the Cameronians, the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders received 1 million signatures in support.
Scotland's regiments—which include the Royal Scots, the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, the Royal Highland Fusiliers, the King's Own Scottish Borderers, the Highlanders and the Black Watch—number among the best front-line fighting units to be found anywhere in the world. So do the Scots Guards—although their regimental headquarters are outside Scotland. The Scots Guards, along with the Scottish regiments, form much of the backbone of the British Army. Those regiments give assistance in civil emergencies, such as floods.
At a time when British soldiers are being asked to do more with fewer numbers, we believe that the Scottish regiments are worthy of the strongest possible support. We ask the minister to pass on our concern to the Ministry of Defence and to outline in the clearest possible terms the strength of our commitment to the regiments, in the best interests of our nation.
Although the subject of this debate is a reserved matter, we have a right to have a say on it because it impinges on many issues for which we are responsible. It has been said, rightly, that the philosophy must be that a country should decide its policies, commitments and priorities and develop its armed forces to meet those. Everyone would agree that peacekeeping and the excellent work that our Army is doing in many parts of the world should be the No 1 priority.
It may be slightly off-message for me to say this, but I do not see why we need so much highly expensive and unusable gear—weapons that we will never use anyway—when that means economising on the people on the ground. What we need for peacekeeping purposes is well-trained infantrymen and others as well as up-to-date equipment, which we seem to lack. We must keep those well-trained people that Scotland produces in such good numbers.
We have to recognise that, for various reasons, it is now harder to recruit. There is prosperity in many parts of the country and a change of public opinion—people find discipline harder than their ancestors did. There is no point in ignoring the problems with recruitment—they must be addressed. We can perhaps play a part, because it is part of the social fabric of our country to give suitable young people—men and women—the opportunity to enter the forces.
We have a particular interest in the role of the Territorial Army—and of the cadets—which recently suffered cuts. I believe that those cuts were a mistake. The TA and the cadets can fulfil a useful function. Arguably, they should be funded from our police, jail and education budgets. They are an important part of the social fabric and of the opportunities that we give our young people.
The fact that our forces are overstretched has a severe effect on their morale. Two of my relatives are army chaplains, who have to spend a lot of their time metaphorically picking up the pieces from the stress that the soldiers suffer. It is wrong that we should cause stress to people whom we employ because we are not prepared to pay to employ enough of them.
As David McLetchie said, foot-and-mouth disease and the recent floods have shown the importance of having well-organised, efficient men and women to deal with civil emergencies. That is a factor that any Government should consider. We should put our opinions forcefully to the Government—whichever Government it is after 7 June—and say that the regiments are an important part of Scottish life and that they give a great deal of service in the way of peacekeeping, for example. We should earnestly urge the Government to address the issue of how better to recruit. We would be happy to co-operate with the Government to help to create more opportunities for recruiting soldiers and bringing up the numbers to the right figure.
I begin by associating myself with David McLetchie's opening remarks. I stress the word "opening" because, although he rightly remarked on the contribution that Scottish servicemen have made over the years, after the first 30 seconds, sadly, he went somewhat awry.
I thank my colleague John Home Robertson for his excellent and incisive speech. If I am quoting him correctly, he described Mr McLetchie's contribution as "reckless hypocrisy". I happily endorse that and will expound further on why the contribution was reckless and hypocritical.
I was relieved that Colin Campbell did not update us on the SNP's latest position on chemical warfare and am delighted that he did not mention the conscription scheme that is supported in the SNP's beloved Norway. [Interruption.]
If you want to make an intervention, Mr Campbell, please stand up.
Many members rightly touched on the importance of the peacekeeping role taken by many of our troops. I put on record the fact that I first met my eminent colleague John Home Robertson on the island of St Kilda. I was a reporter while he was there as a member of Parliament. Mr Home Robertson, my friend Calum MacDonald and other members of the House of Commons Defence Committee rightly recognised the obvious qualities of the rocket range on South Uist. They were ably supported by the late Sir Nicholas Fairbairn, who served at that rocket range in the late 1950s. On behalf of my constituents on South Uist, Benbecula and North Uist, I salute John Home Robertson and former members of that committee.
Members have rightly pointed out that this is a reserved matter—Mr McLetchie well appreciates that. Nevertheless, I welcome the opportunity to set the record straight on what is an important subject. The future size and organisation of the Army, especially in Scotland, is a topic of great interest to many and one that raises strong emotions. However, I regret to say that it is my understanding that most of what has been written about the subject over the past few weeks—and indeed some of what has been said in the chamber today—has been inaccurate and misleading. I certainly welcome the opportunity to set the record straight.
I begin by setting out the facts of the situation. The motion is based on a totally false premise. I must make it absolutely clear to everyone that no cuts are proposed. I am assured by colleagues at Westminster that the Westminster Government has no plans or proposals to cut any regiments. Neither are there any plans or proposals to reduce the size of the Territorial Army. The question of cutting any Scottish regiments—or any other regiments for that matter—simply does not arise.
The rumours that have been reported in some quarters that parades are already being arranged to mark the disbandment of some regiments are equally unfounded and are unsettling to those concerned. There has also been speculation about the future of brigades in Scotland. Once again, let me reassure members that there are no plans to reduce the number of brigades in Scotland from two to one. Neither is there any intention to reduce the number of brigade headquarters in Scotland.
Far from agreeing to any cuts, the UK Government has increased funds for defence. As John Home Robertson pointed out, the Government was able to announce last July the first sustained increase in real terms in the defence budget for 10 years.
I am grateful to the minister for making the situation clear, but there is one thing that he has not mentioned. Does the Government have any plans to withdraw our forces from our remaining garrisons in Germany so that we can have our folks home, where they can have an input into our economy rather than the German economy? Is he aware that the UK Government has any such plans?
I am certainly not aware of any such plans. As someone who is standing in as a defence minister for a mere seven minutes, I am not in a position to update Mr Rumbles. However, I am happy to convey his question to Lewis Moonie and other ministers when they assume office in a week's time.
It is wrong and alarmist to suggest that there is a need to change Army force structures because of a lack of resources. The strategic defence review set out targets for increasing the size of the Army. The Government remains committed to achieving full manning for the Army and is making active efforts to meet that target, particularly in Scotland, where a specialist recruiting company has been engaged to assist. Nobody pretended that meeting that aim would be easy. Indeed, the difficulties of doing so against the background of a buoyant economy and adverse demographic factors make the task particularly challenging, but that is no reason for not trying. Considerable effort is being put into achieving the aim of full manning.
The strategic defence review also recommended restructuring the Territorial Army. The aim was to make it a more relevant and usable organisation. Despite the siren voices at the time, the restructuring has been a marked success. There is no intention to reduce further the size of the TA. The Army will continue to look at ways of making even better use of that important resource. As one would expect, the Army is always looking at its command arrangements to ensure that the most effective structures are in place.
Contrary to comment in the chamber, that work is not being undertaken in secret, with decisions being announced the moment the ballot boxes close on 7 June. The Army has set out a strategy for the future in the document entitled "Strategy for the Army", which was made available to Westminster defence spokesmen in March this year. I am happy to make a copy of that document available to any member who is interested. Recommendations from that work are not likely before the autumn. They will include recommendations on, among other issues, the roles and responsibilities of the regional brigade structure. However, there is no suggestion that there will be a reduction in the number of brigades in Scotland.
I accept the minister's assurances that there will be no change in the number of brigades, but can he assure me that there will be no change in the location of the brigades?
I am just coming to that point. I shall make that clear as I proceed—I see that I have about 40 seconds left in which to do so.
I hope that what I have said has made the position absolutely clear. Members should be aware that Major General Robert Gordon, general officer commanding the 2nd Division, wrote to the editor of The Daily Telegraph stating that the Army was not planning to scrap the two brigades in Scotland or to merge some of Scotland's undermanned regiments. I understand that the editor, who had previously published inaccurate stories on that topic, unfortunately chose not to publish the major general's letter.
All the politically inspired furore and speculation is extremely unhelpful. More than that, it is deeply worrying to soldiers and their families as it causes them totally unnecessary concern about their welfare and future careers.
We must not forget the civilians in Scotland who work directly for, and in support of, the Army. They, too, will have been worried that their livelihoods might be at risk. I trust that my comments today will go some way towards reassuring everyone concerned and easing some of their understandable fears.
I conclude by thanking David McLetchie for the opportunity to set the record straight. I make it clear that the Westminster Government has assured me that there are no plans to cut any regiments, to reduce the number of brigades in Scotland or to reduce the size of the Territorial Army.
Meeting closed at 16:50.