benzonar
4th Dec 2007, 08:50
William Rees-Mogg has an article in The Times today concerning the Armed Forces and Des Browne.
<H1 class=heading>We're still selling our Services short
As our history is flogged off to developers .. .
William Rees-Mogg
On November 25 there was an alluring property advertisement in The Sunday Times. The strapline read: “If you’re looking for contemporary city apartments, idyllic riverside homes or stunning country retreats . . .” The photograph showed a palace, comparable only with Hampton Court. The text of the advertisement stated: “Durkan Estates are restoring and developing the former Royal Military Academy in Woolwich. This outstanding development of 211 apartments and houses will be launching in early 2008.”
Last May Defence Estates, the organisation that manages or disposes of property belonging to the Ministry of Defence, published a list of disposals from 1998 to May 2007. On it one can identify the disposal of the Royal Military Academy, Woolwich. The MoD sold Woolwich in the financial year 2005-06. It was undoubtedly a very valuable property, though I suspect that its 2007 value may be a great deal higher even than its value in 2005.
The list of disposals was published as the result of an inquiry under the Freedom of Information Act. It makes interesting reading. I had not realised that Catterick garrison had been sold. Yet, in policy terms, it is the totals that define the strategy. Indeed, they tell one a great deal about the Treasury’s strategy for defence. In a period of slightly fewer than ten years approximately 12,500 hectares of land were sold, which amounts to about 30,000 acres. That is a lot of land. The value of the properties sold was £2.2 billion.
In the debate on morale and recruitment in the Army there have been many criticisms of the wretched quality of much of the accommodation for soldiers and their families. If one reads through the list of disposals, one cannot be sure what properties were in good or bad repair, though some of the houses could surely have been retained to upgrade military accommodation.
Defence Estates was able to achieve more than £2 billion of sales. What share of the £2 billion was spent on upgrading the current substandard accommodation for soldiers and their families? Did the Government use the money for the welfare of the soldiers, or the convenience of the Treasury?
Unfortunately, the Army has not only been starved of funds to improve accommodation. British soldiers are underpaid and underequipped, as well as being badly housed. The more closely one looks at the condition of our defence Forces, the more scandalous the parsimony and neglect seem to be. This does not apply only to the Army. The situations of the RAF and the Royal Navy are similar.
Des Browne, the Secretary for Defence, has sought to protect his already inadequate budget by ordering an MoD report on the condition of the Royal Navy. This report has been leaked to The Sunday Telegraph. The conclusions are devastating. “The current material state of the Fleet is not good; the Royal Navy would be challenged to mount a medium-scale operation against a technologically capable adversary.” The fleet is “underresourced” and is composed of “ageing and operationally defective ships”.
Again, it is the sheer scale of the rundown that is of the most strategic concern. In 1987 Britain had 54 destroyers or frigates; now there are 25. In 1987 there were 15 submarines; now there are nine. Tankers are down from 11 to six; offshore patrol vessels from nine to five; landing ships from six to three. There are still three aircraft carriers and four helicopter ships, but a 1987 fleet totalling 128 vessels is down to 73. No doubt the 2007 fleet is more advanced technologically than that of 20 years before, but many vessels today are already old and moving towards obsolescence.
Similar problems face the Royal Air Force, which has many out-of-date aircraft. The RAF needs new and well-protected aircraft that can actually do the job in hand. In recent years British military actions have been concentrated on areas such as the Middle East and the Balkans. These are not hi-tech wars, though they potentially face the middle-rank technology likely to be available to oil-rich nations. In particular, the RAF needs modern transport aircraft and helicopters.
Ten days ago there was an important debate in the House of Lords in which several senior retired officers made informed criticisms of the Government. All criticised underfunding of the services. Since then, the problem of raising political funds has taken up space in the newspapers. Yet the defence question must be pressed. If we are to have a defence strategy, we must be prepared to balance our national commitments with our national resources. In the past ten years Britain has been engaged in five wars, in Sierra Leone, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. If Britain is to fight such campaigns successfully it is necessary to recruit and retain soldiers with the professional skills to fight a modern technological war.
All the evidence is that the Government is not prepared to make this commitment, either financially or in terms of understanding and support. Britain’s Armed Forces are a a vital national asset and important to the stability of the world. They do not see the Government as being willing to back them with adequate resources; on the contrary, they see that the British troops are less well-supported than those of their allies.
The Government’s reaction to criticism is a very human one; when criticised by generals, it blames the generals. It is equally irritated by admirals or air marshals. The Prime Minister should be grateful for such criticism. All the facts show that the critics are justified; their Service careers show that they are motivated by loyalty and constitutional propriety. It is very dangerous to engage in wars without the weapons to win them, and the soldiers to fight them. Both cost money; both need support.
</H1>
<H1 class=heading>We're still selling our Services short
As our history is flogged off to developers .. .
William Rees-Mogg
On November 25 there was an alluring property advertisement in The Sunday Times. The strapline read: “If you’re looking for contemporary city apartments, idyllic riverside homes or stunning country retreats . . .” The photograph showed a palace, comparable only with Hampton Court. The text of the advertisement stated: “Durkan Estates are restoring and developing the former Royal Military Academy in Woolwich. This outstanding development of 211 apartments and houses will be launching in early 2008.”
Last May Defence Estates, the organisation that manages or disposes of property belonging to the Ministry of Defence, published a list of disposals from 1998 to May 2007. On it one can identify the disposal of the Royal Military Academy, Woolwich. The MoD sold Woolwich in the financial year 2005-06. It was undoubtedly a very valuable property, though I suspect that its 2007 value may be a great deal higher even than its value in 2005.
The list of disposals was published as the result of an inquiry under the Freedom of Information Act. It makes interesting reading. I had not realised that Catterick garrison had been sold. Yet, in policy terms, it is the totals that define the strategy. Indeed, they tell one a great deal about the Treasury’s strategy for defence. In a period of slightly fewer than ten years approximately 12,500 hectares of land were sold, which amounts to about 30,000 acres. That is a lot of land. The value of the properties sold was £2.2 billion.
In the debate on morale and recruitment in the Army there have been many criticisms of the wretched quality of much of the accommodation for soldiers and their families. If one reads through the list of disposals, one cannot be sure what properties were in good or bad repair, though some of the houses could surely have been retained to upgrade military accommodation.
Defence Estates was able to achieve more than £2 billion of sales. What share of the £2 billion was spent on upgrading the current substandard accommodation for soldiers and their families? Did the Government use the money for the welfare of the soldiers, or the convenience of the Treasury?
Unfortunately, the Army has not only been starved of funds to improve accommodation. British soldiers are underpaid and underequipped, as well as being badly housed. The more closely one looks at the condition of our defence Forces, the more scandalous the parsimony and neglect seem to be. This does not apply only to the Army. The situations of the RAF and the Royal Navy are similar.
Des Browne, the Secretary for Defence, has sought to protect his already inadequate budget by ordering an MoD report on the condition of the Royal Navy. This report has been leaked to The Sunday Telegraph. The conclusions are devastating. “The current material state of the Fleet is not good; the Royal Navy would be challenged to mount a medium-scale operation against a technologically capable adversary.” The fleet is “underresourced” and is composed of “ageing and operationally defective ships”.
Again, it is the sheer scale of the rundown that is of the most strategic concern. In 1987 Britain had 54 destroyers or frigates; now there are 25. In 1987 there were 15 submarines; now there are nine. Tankers are down from 11 to six; offshore patrol vessels from nine to five; landing ships from six to three. There are still three aircraft carriers and four helicopter ships, but a 1987 fleet totalling 128 vessels is down to 73. No doubt the 2007 fleet is more advanced technologically than that of 20 years before, but many vessels today are already old and moving towards obsolescence.
Similar problems face the Royal Air Force, which has many out-of-date aircraft. The RAF needs new and well-protected aircraft that can actually do the job in hand. In recent years British military actions have been concentrated on areas such as the Middle East and the Balkans. These are not hi-tech wars, though they potentially face the middle-rank technology likely to be available to oil-rich nations. In particular, the RAF needs modern transport aircraft and helicopters.
Ten days ago there was an important debate in the House of Lords in which several senior retired officers made informed criticisms of the Government. All criticised underfunding of the services. Since then, the problem of raising political funds has taken up space in the newspapers. Yet the defence question must be pressed. If we are to have a defence strategy, we must be prepared to balance our national commitments with our national resources. In the past ten years Britain has been engaged in five wars, in Sierra Leone, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. If Britain is to fight such campaigns successfully it is necessary to recruit and retain soldiers with the professional skills to fight a modern technological war.
All the evidence is that the Government is not prepared to make this commitment, either financially or in terms of understanding and support. Britain’s Armed Forces are a a vital national asset and important to the stability of the world. They do not see the Government as being willing to back them with adequate resources; on the contrary, they see that the British troops are less well-supported than those of their allies.
The Government’s reaction to criticism is a very human one; when criticised by generals, it blames the generals. It is equally irritated by admirals or air marshals. The Prime Minister should be grateful for such criticism. All the facts show that the critics are justified; their Service careers show that they are motivated by loyalty and constitutional propriety. It is very dangerous to engage in wars without the weapons to win them, and the soldiers to fight them. Both cost money; both need support.
</H1>