House of Commons Defence Committee Future Army 2020 Ninth Report of Session 2013–14 Volume I Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes and oral evidence Written evidence is contained in Volume II, available on the Committee website at www.parliament.uk/defcom Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 29 January 2014 HC 576 [Incorporating HC 803-i, Session 2012–13] Published on 6 March 2014 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £17.50 Future Army 2020 1 The Defence Committee The Defence Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Ministry of Defence and its associated public bodies. Current membership Rt Hon James Arbuthnot MP (Conservative, North East Hampshire) (Chair) Mr Julian Brazier MP (Conservative, Canterbury) Mr James Gray MP (Conservative, North Wiltshire) Rt Hon Jeffrey M. Donaldson MP (Democratic Unionist, Lagan Valley) Mr Dai Havard MP (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) Adam Holloway MP (Conservative, Gravesham) Mrs Madeleine Moon MP (Labour, Bridgend) Sir Bob Russell MP (Liberal Democrat, Colchester) Bob Stewart MP (Conservative, Beckenham) Ms Gisela Stuart MP (Labour, Birmingham, Edgbaston) Derek Twigg MP (Labour, Halton) John Woodcock MP (Labour/Co-op, Barrow and Furness) The following Members were also members of the Committee during this inquiry. Thomas Docherty MP (Labour, Dunfermline and West Fife) Penny Mordaunt MP (Conservative, Portsmouth North) Sandra Osborne MP (Labour, Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk. Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the internet at www.parliament.uk/parliament.uk/defcom. The Reports of the Committee, the formal minutes relating to that report, oral evidence taken and some or all written evidence are available in a printed volume. Additional written evidence may be published on the internet only. Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are James Rhys (Clerk), Dougie Wands (Second Clerk), Karen Jackson (Audit Adviser), Ian Thomson (Committee Specialist), Christine Randall (Senior Committee Assistant), Rowena Macdonald and Carolyn Bowes (Committee Assistants), and Sumati Sowamber (Committee Support Assistant). Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Defence Committee, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 5857; the Committee’s email address is [email protected]. Media inquiries should be addressed to Alex Paterson on 020 7219 1589. 2 Future Army 2020 Contents Report Page Conclusions and recommendations 5 1 Introduction 13 Background 13 Timeline 13 Our inquiry 14 2 The Army 2020 plan 16 SDSR to Army 2020 16 Redundancy scheme 18 Strategic rationale of Army 2020 18 Role of the National Security Council 19 Army 2020 structure 20 Army 2020 plans 22 Testing and experimentation of Army 2020 23 Army 2020: financial drivers 24 “Fighting Power” 26 “Critical mass” of the Army 26 Defence Planning Assumptions 29 Expeditionary warfare 30 Joint working with the other Services 32 3 Implementation of Army 2020 33 Recruitment of Reserves 33 Relationship between the reduction in Regulars and the increase in Reservists 34 Reservist recruitment challenge 35 Recruitment and Target Data 38 Army recruitment contract 39 Reserves White Paper 41 Defence Reform Bill 43 Recognition for employers 43 Response from employers 44 Role of Reservists 46 Formed units and sub-units of Reservists and partnering with Regular units 48 Specialist Reserves 50 Ex-Regular Reserves 51 Role of Reservists in reconnecting the Armed Forces and the public 53 Cost and budget for Reservists 54 Recruitment age 55 Basing and Germany 57 Withdrawal from Germany 58 SDSR 2015 and beyond 60 Future Army 2020 3 4 Conclusion 62 Formal Minutes 63 Witnesses 64 List of written evidence 65 List of Reports from the Committee in Session 2013–14 66 Future Army 2020 5 Conclusions and recommendations Introduction 1. At the beginning of our Report, we wish to pay tribute to Army personnel, including those who have left the Services, for their bravery, dedication to duty and their contribution to the nation’s security. This has been an uncertain and worrying time for the Armed Forces as they undergo major changes to their structure and role while continuing to undertake operations in Afghanistan and other parts of the world. We also recognise the valuable role that their families play in supporting them as they carry out their duties. (Paragraph 6) The Army 2020 plan 2. We are surprised that such a radical change to the Army’s structure, reflecting a reduction of 12,000 personnel from that announced in SDSR 2010, was not discussed at the National Security Council (NSC). Even if the overall strategic vision had not changed, as the Government claims, the military ways and means of that strategy were considerably altered under Army 2020. We are firmly of the view that the NSC should have considered the Army 2020 plan. We recommend that the NSC should be involved in the evolution and development of Future Force 2020 in the run-up to the next SDSR in 2015. (Paragraph 15) 3. We have received no definitive evidence of an active experimentation programme in the development and implementation of Army 2020. Furthermore we note with concern that the Chief of the General Staff’s update on the implementation of Army 2020, published in July 2013, provided no detail on experimentation. The MoD should set out in more detail, with specific examples, how the plans for Army 2020 were, and are, being tested and challenged. (Paragraph 26) 4. We note that the Secretary of State for Defence accepts that Army 2020 was designed to fit a financial envelope. We are concerned that this consideration took primacy over the country’s abilities to respond to the threats, risks and uncertainties contained in the National Security Strategy. We were also concerned to hear that it was the Ministry of Defence’s Permanent Secretary who told the Chief of the General Staff the future size of the Army under the Army 2020 plan. We call on the MoD to explain the apparent lack of consultation and involvement of the Chief of the General Staff in the decision-making process that has affected his Service so fundamentally. (Paragraph 32) 5. In its response to this Report, we recommend that the MoD provide us with an assessment of how the Army 2020 plans will affect the “Fighting Power” of the Army providing comparable assessments of both current fighting power and projected fighting power following the completion of the Army 2020 plans. (Paragraph 34) 6. We agree with the Chief of the General Staff’s assessment that the security threats that the UK will face in future are uncertain. We remain to be convinced that the Army 2020 plan represents a fully thought-through and tested concept which will 6 Future Army 2020 allow the Army to counter emerging and uncertain threats and develop a contingent capability to deal with unforeseen circumstances. The MoD needs to justify how the conclusion was reached that the Army 2020 plan of 82,000 Regulars and 30,000 Reserves represented the best way of countering these threats. We ask the MoD to clarify if the proposals were fully considered by the Defence Board before the decision was made. (Paragraph 41) 7. We repeat our previous recommendation that the Government should further develop a concept of “critical mass” for the Armed Forces. We note that this is a concept not only used by the Army General Staff, but also one that the new Chief of the Defence Staff used in a recent speech. The development of a concept of “critical mass” for the Armed Forces, coupled with an assessment of the Army 2020 plan against the MoD’s “Fighting Power” doctrine, would enable a much better informed understanding of whether Army 2020 will enable the Army to fulfil its obligations and how it will contribute to Future Force 2020. (Paragraph 42) 8. We note the acknowledgement by senior Army officers that the continuing operation in Afghanistan and the current high level of change in the Army will compromise its ability to respond to unexpected events to some degree. We also note that one of the drivers for the Army 2020 plan was the recognition that the Army could not match in resource-terms the five Multi-Role Brigade enduring operation envisaged in the Defence Planning Assumptions. In an ever changing world, with uncertain and ever changing threats, and continuing uncertainty about the resources available, we are concerned that the Defence Planning Assumptions are adequate to ensure the UK’s national security. In its response to our Report, the MoD should explain what account was taken of the possibility of changes to the Defence Planning Assumptions during the development of Army 2020 and how it has ensured that there is sufficient flexibility in the plan and resources available to meet any such changes. The MoD must ensure that this is taken into account as part of the work on the 2015 SDSR and that contingency plans are in place to deal urgently with this eventuality. (Paragraph 48) 9. Despite the current lack of public appetite, we consider it to be a question of when, not if, UK Armed Forces will have to undertake an expeditionary operation in the future. In this context, it is essential that the Army maintains its ability to undertake such operations at short notice.