How best can a volunteer force meet new demands? Armed Forces Minister John Reid explains

SINCE we started the Government's Strategic Defence Review a year ago, George Robertson and I have received more mail than at any time in our political careers. The public has had many messages for us, but one that has come across loud and clear is the affection in which local Territorial Army units are held by the people of Scotland.

What people have most wanted to tell us is the importance of having Territorial units around the country, to build links between the Armed Forces and the civilian community. They value the opportunities that the Territorials offer young men and women for training, character development, and public service.

And they are very proud of their history. The regiments of the Scottish Territorial Army have fought with distinction in many great campaigns. Their traditions have survived many changes and are at the heart of their esprit de corps.

This shows in their contribution today. In 1996-97, among the numbers who mobilised voluntarily from the Territorial Army to serve alongside regulars on operations, there were 16 soldiers from the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, 10 from the Royal Highland Fusiliers, and eight from the Black Watch. By February last year another 26 soldiers from the Scottish Division had mobilised for service. What these soldiers, and many like them, have done in the service of our national interests has been invaluable.

While I pay tribute to what has been achieved in the past, the challenge now lies in adapting to the needs of the future. In the defence review we have thought hard about the new strategic environment that has emerged from the uncertainty after the Cold War. It is clear that the world today, and the crises we are likely to face tomorrow, are of a very different nature.

One clear conclusion of our foreign policy-led analysis is that speed of deployment in an international crisis will be crucial. Reserves, it is true, are often a cost-effective source of military capability. But they take longer to get ready than regulars. This is particularly true in the case of front-line infantry and armour roles, which demand a great deal of all-arms training.

Nevertheless, there are roles for which we can expect to call on reserves at short notice. Some units and individuals must be capable of being deployed on operations with little warning. But at present, almost all the Territorial Army is held at low readiness against the remote possibility of a major attack on Nato. That must change. In the event of a major crisis, for example, we must be prepared to call out reserves compulsorily and in their thousands if we are fully to exploit the military potential of the TA and other reserves.

We have, therefore, been looking at how to make best use of our reserve forces - how to make them more relevant, usable, and professional. We are looking at how we might make use of the new flexibility to deploy reservists in peacetime given by the Reserve Forces Act passed in 1996. We know that the reserves might also serve as a framework to build up our forces should a major threat to the UK re-emerge. We know also that we must improve the mobilisation procedures for the TA, whether for major operations or for individuals volunteering to reinforce the regular Army on current operations.

What we need to do is to reshape the Territorial Army to reflect today's challenges. By doing this we will gain not only a cost-effective boost to our ability to project power as a force for good in the distressed regions of the world. We will also keep a substantial Territorial Army, with all the added value that brings in terms of links with local communities.

We believe that the Army we deploy in future operations should be one integrated force, part regular, and part reserve. It would include Territorials in a wide range of skilled roles, some as individuals working with regulars, many in Territorial Army units. We would literally not be able to fight a serious war without them.

Numbers will change, and there are plenty who will rush to criticise us for this. But it is easy to be seduced by the mere appearance of military strength. It is more important to ensure that the units we have know that they have real roles to fulfil, than it is to concentrate on raw numbers alone.

With the UK, for example, not now at risk of a major attack, we have to ask ourselves whether we have too many units, especially combat units, assigned to defending our shores against invasion. The Army is at the same time becoming even more hi-tech, making its logistical and technical support ever more important. The TA may have a greater role in providing this support to the regular Army.

The review has shown that there is a particular need for signallers, drivers, artillery men and women, military police, intelligence and survey teams. We need Territorial Army soldiers who can repair battle-damaged vehicles, operate sophisticated military equipment such as the multiple launch rocket system, deal with local civilian populations, and engage in a wide range of specialist and core military tasks. We are also likely to need many more medical reserves.

We do not want a volunteer force which is irrelevant. We want the reserve forces to make a real contribution to the defence needs of the country, and for this we need reserves which are relevant, usable, integrated with the rest of our Armed Forces, and properly trained and resourced for the tasks of today and tomorrow.

Of course, people working with and in the Territorial Army are anxious. Rumour and speculation is rife. I have already read in various letters I have received that the number of infantry battalions north of the Border is to be two, one, or none. I have not agreed to any such thing. Nor has any such number been suggested to me.

We have sent proposals on the full range of defence issues, including the future size and shape of reserves, to the Prime Minister and members of the Cabinet. Announcements will be made as soon as possible after decisions are reached. But it is one thing to fix the shape of the Territorial Army, and quite another to decide how each unit within it may be affected. We have many points to consider.

We will want to build on existing strong links of Territorial Army units with the community, and the cadets; and we will want to build on the enthusiasm that there is in many areas for volunteer service. We will also want to take into account the availability of training facilities; and the need for close working between Territorial units and the regular Armed Forces. Within these constraints, we aim to preserve as wide a presence as possible for the Territorial Army across the country.

So it may take some months after our first announcements to reach final decisions on what may be a complex set of changes. But I am confident that the outcome will be a coherent force, relevant to the nation's needs, and right for service of a modern Britain.

I am also confident that within this force we will preserve, one way or another, the historic identities and traditions that the Territorial Army of today has inherited from the past. These traditions have a strength of their own. They survive through regimental amalgamations and changes of role, cascading from generation to generation of soldiers with the sureness of a river that finds its way downhill. They do so because the soldier of the present needs them. The soldier of the future will need them, too.