THIS HAS BEEN UPDATED ON 1 NOVEMBER 1995
THE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES
OFFICIAL REPORT
IN THE FOURTH SESSION OF THE FIFTY-FIRST PARLIAMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND
[WHICH OPENED 27 APRIL 1992]
FORTY-FOURTH YEAR OF THE REIGN OF HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH II
SIXTH SERIES
VOLUME 269
THIRD VOLUME OF SESSION 1995-96
House of Commons
Tuesday 9 January 1996
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
NEW WRIT
For Hemsworth, in the room of Derek Anthony Enright Esq., deceased.--[Mr. Dewar.]
Oral Answers to Questions
DEFENCE
British-USA Co-operation
1. Mr. Merchant: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met the United States Secretary of Defence to discuss British-United States of America defence co-operation.[6338]
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence last met the United States Defence Secretary at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation defence planning committee meeting in Brussels on 29 November. He will be visiting Washington again shortly.
Mr. Merchant: First, I wish you a happy new year, Madam Speaker. Secondly, I ask my hon. Friend whether when the Secretary of State next meets his American counterpart he will stress the paramount importance to Britain of the United States-British defence relationship,
as demonstrated by our excellent co-operation in Bosnia through the implementation force and on general intelligence matters.
Mr. Soames: I also wish you a very happy new year, Madam Speaker--as indeed do all wings of the Tory party. The transatlantic relationship is, and continues to be, of paramount importance to the United Kingdom defence effort. It is based on a shared world outlook and a commitment to common fundamental values.
As my hon. Friend correctly points out, the current peace implementation is the latest example of co-operation between our two countries. It also demonstrates the importance of the United States to European defence, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that fact to the attention of the House.
Mr. Llew Smith:
Will the Minister inform the House of the total cost to the taxpayer and to the environment of the Trident programme--which was purchased from the United States--during its planned operating life?
Mr. Soames:
My hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement will answer a question about the Trident programme later. Suffice it to say that the Trident programme represents a remarkable achievement by the Royal Navy, coming in within budget and on time. It is a wonder of technical engineering.
Mr. Bill Walker:
When my hon. Friend next meets his American friends, will he remind them that co-operation between the United Kingdom and the United States on nuclear matters has brought about the demise of the Soviet regime and the fall of the Berlin wall? The deployment of cruise missiles contributed massively to those outcomes, just as Trident is contributing to world peace today.
Mr. Soames:
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, who is right to draw the matter to the attention of the House. He will recall the Labour party's opposition to stationing cruise missiles in the United Kingdom, which significantly dented the Soviet Union's resolve to carry on. We clearly cannot accept anything that risks
Mr. David Hart
2. Mr. Betts: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the role of Mr. David Hart in his Department's financial efficiency schemes.[6339]
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. James Arbuthnot): Mr. Hart's unpaid advice has made a valuable contribution at the Ministry of Defence, including to the defence costs study and to our continuing search for greater efficiency.
Mr. Betts: The Minister did not sound very confident about that answer. Is not the whole affair just another example of serious lack of judgment on the part of the Secretary of State for Defence? Given Mr. Hart's expressed views about buying our defence equipment from abroad and the role that he is obviously playing in the efficiency studies within the Department, will the Minister assure us that Mr. Hart's activities will in no way reduce further the capabilities of the Royal Air Force? Will the Minister also give an assurance that Mr. Hart's activities will not lead to a threat to the future of the Eurofighter project?
Mr. Arbuthnot: I am extremely confident; unfortunately, I am also voiceless. The capabilities of Mr. Hart are considerable, and as I have said, he contributed significantly to the defence costs study. That will shortly save the Ministry of Defence over £1 billion every year.
Sir Anthony Grant: Will my hon. Friend seek the advice of Mr. Hart on the financial efficiency of the bid by Land-Rover Marshalls for the ambulances required by the MOD? Will my hon. Friend discuss with Mr. Hart the rather more expensive bid by a foreign country-- namely, Austria?
Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend is more ingenious than ever. I congratulate him on his advocacy for his constituency, which I knew he would produce, because he always does. Unfortunately, I must tell him that no decision has yet been made on the ambulance procurement issue.
Dr. Reid: Is it not true that, under the Secretary of State and his advisers, we have a new slogan for the Ministry of Defence--"If it's British military heritage, sell it; if it's foreign military hardware, buy it"? Does the Minister believe that that is efficient? Will he explain to the Secretary of State, when he returns from his jaunt to Japan, and to his advisers that operational effectiveness is the only way to judge efficiency for the armed forces?
The morale of the British armed forces is undermined every time this free-market Secretary of State and his free-market fanatic adviser take a decision. Does it make any sense to have people running the Ministry of Defence who know the price of everything and the value of nothing?
Mr. Arbuthnot:
No. The hon. Member is pursuing a canard. [Interruption.] I am sorry, that is foreign. He based his question on the recent, incorrect suggestion that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had been involved in selling off Admiralty arch. It has never been
Mr. Forman:
Since the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) appears to know more about Mr. David Hart than many of the rest of us, will my hon. Friend consider placing a copy of his biographical details in the Library?
Mr. Arbuthnot:
I would not wish to put a copy of the biographical details of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) in the Library, because they would not bear reading.
4. Mr. Flynn:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average amount spent on recruitment costs for each entrant to the Army in the most recent 12 months for which figures are available.[6341]
Mr. Soames:
During 1994-95, the average cost of an entrant to the Army was £4,638. That figure does not include the significant recruiting efforts made by individual regiments for which costs are not held centrally.
Mr. Flynn:
Can the Minister explain why the Government spent £1 billion in redundancy costs, forcing--against their will, in most cases--137,000 people out of the armed forces? Those people were fully trained and fit. At the same time, in 1994, every recruit to the RAF cost £26,000. So the Government spent £1 billion getting rid of people, and £1.25 billion replacing them. Can we rest in our beds at night knowing that the people who are responsible for that enormous calamity and waste are in charge of the defence of the realm?
Mr. Soames:
The hon. Gentleman is confusing a number of separate issues. There are difficulties with recruiting at the moment, and recruiting to the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force is expensive. The reason for that is that, although the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force do not at the moment require large numbers of recruits, for obvious reasons they need to retain a viable, satisfactory and operational recruiting service. The Army spends rather less on recruiting because it has more people coming through its books the whole time, so the average cost is much less.
As for redundancies, it was certainly a cause of great sadness that "Options for Change", the defence costs studies, and all the other measures flowing from those resulted in large numbers of people leaving the services-- but I am afraid that that was inevitable. To ensure the correct profile of experience and the right balance of specialisation and age, it is necessary at all times to continue recruiting, to refresh the ranks at all levels.
Mr. Brazier:
Is it not true that the armed forces are basically for the young, and that although we must deal generously with the older people who have had to be made redundant we must continue to recruit young people? Will my hon. Friend say a little more about the welcome initiatives that he is currently carrying out with the education and employment services?
Mr. Soames:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his recognition that, especially for the infantry and the other
Dr. David Clark:
Does the Minister believe that the recruitment budget has been well spent when the total strength of the Army is only 104,000 men and women against a requirement of 117,000--a shortfall of 13,000? It takes a Government of special genius, does it not, to be unable to recruit men and women to the Army when there are 2.5 million men and women desperate for work?
Mr. Soames:
That shows a profound misunderstanding of the facts and is an obvious demonstration of the hon. Gentleman's complete lack of grasp of this important matter. We are competing in a highly competitive job market. It is true that we are suffering from manpower shortages--the Army is short of 2,500 men--but the hon. Gentleman's figures are way out.
I believe that our recruitment budget is extremely well and effectively spent. As I have said in the House before and will go on saying, we need to do better and to improve the image of the armed forces, so as to ensure a proper flow of young men and women into them. We badly need them; but the hon. Gentleman's assertions are way out of order.
Mr. Rathbone:
What does the cost of recruiting to the Territorial Army happen to be? It has always struck me as the most cost-efficient part of the military.
Mr. Soames:
I cannot tell my hon. Friend precisely, because the cost comes under the overall recruiting budget. My hon. Friend is certainly right to say that recruitment to the TA is extremely important. We regard it as an essential part of the one-army concept, and we regard the reserves as part of the mainstream forces. We greatly value their contribution to the United Kingdom defence effort.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |