Call for school cadet forces ignores existing units in our communities

Published on Thursday 22 May 2008 20:38

In relation to Quentin Davis's report recommending that secondary schools should operate their own combined cadet forces (CCF) (Debate & Opinion, 20 May), I am sure the idea has been mooted before by this government, but perhaps for a different reason.

The previous proposal came, I believe, in response to concerns about antisocial behaviour and the need to give young people more opportunities to develop themselves and contribute to their communities. However, this latest scheme appears to focus on trying to "forcibly" encourage a better understanding of, and respect for, our armed forces.

Although supportive of a better understanding of the role of our soldiers, airman and sailors, I believe Mr Davies and the government, by concentrating on secondary school cadet units have ignored the large number of existing cadet units and other youth organisations that are "community"-based; rather than what could be perceived as closed, elitist and community-remote cadet units based in schools.

Many units of the Army Cadet Force, Air Cadets and Sea Cadets operate within their local communities, providing an opportunity for all young people to communicate, work and socialise together.

These units, although, understandably, providing an insight into their particular area of interest, are more active in the pursuit of citizenship, community service, leadership and teamwork skills. They, along with other youth organisations providing the same community-based opportunities for young people, should not be subsumed by what can only be seen as another simplistic political answer to a complicated problem.

I support the recommendation of expanding the fairly recent annual Veterans' Day into an "armed forces and veterans' day". However, I have some concern that more established events such as Remembrance Day and Battle of Britain Week (mainly organised by volunteers) could be overshadowed by a new government-sponsored event.

BOB BERTRAM

Main Street

Pathhead, Midlothian

George Kerevan (Debate & Opinion, 21 May) hits the nail on the head when he says we either scale back our commitments or up the resources. Like him, many of us who watch the defence scene doubt the new super-carriers will ever be built.

While the current priority must be to support British troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, this must not be at the sacrifice of projects that cannot be switched on and off and have a far longer gestation period than a set of body armour or desert boots.

The Ministry of Defence has learned nothing over the years. The Type 45 destroyers were ordered before the design was finalised, rather like amateur house-builders in a television programme, and the MoD wonders why prices have escalated and delivery is late.

The ministry commits itself to two aircraft carriers of a size we have never operated before, and even orders the steel for these ships before signing the contract with the shipbuilders. It ignores lower-cost options, such as carriers based on a container ship hull, which means we could easily afford three or four ships of around 30,000 tons rather than just two at 66,000 tons.

This is not a throwback to the escort carriers of the Second World War, as modern merchant vessels are faster, larger and more sophisticated than those of the 1940s.

Even if Labour wins the next general election, I predict these ships will be cancelled within a fortnight of a new government.

DAVID WRAGG

Stoneyflatts

South Queensferry, West Lothian