---

14 Jan 1997 : Column 115

House of Commons

Tuesday 14 January 1997

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Madam Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

DEFENCE

Stanmore Park RAF Base

1. Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the voluntary redundancy and early retirement statistics of civilian and military personnel at Stanmore Park RAF base. [8970]

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): The majority of civilian staff to be affected by the closure of RAF Stanmore Park in April this year have been found alternative employment and every effort is being made to find posts for the remainder. By April, 35 Royal Air Force personnel will have left on voluntary redundancy and a further 13 will have been granted premature voluntary release.

Mr. Dykes: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, and I also thank his Department and the Royal Air Force for the positive, thoughtful and careful way in which the programme has been handled. I congratulate him on being able to keep the pledge that there would not be other than a small number of redundancies. Is he now confident that everybody will be either deployed with satisfactory packages to enable them to have a breathing space to find alternative employment or re-employed in military or civil posts elsewhere?

Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I note the care and attention that he has taken on his constituents' behalf on the occasions that he has lobbied me here and at the Ministry of Defence. I can give him the assurance that he seeks, but there may be a requirement for two employees--one industrial and one non-industrial--to leave on redundancy or early retirement terms by April 1997. However, all possible efforts will be made to identify alternative employment for them.

Armed Services (Rapid Deployment)

3. Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the state of readiness of the armed services for rapid deployment. [8972]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Portillo): It is our policy to be prepared for rapid

14 Jan 1997 : Column 116

deployment. We have created a permanent joint headquarters and joint rapid deployment force and placed orders for appropriate ships and aircraft.

Mr. Shaw: Does not my right hon. Friend's reply demonstrate that the Government have continually developed our armed forces, and have made sure that they have the modern weapons that they need and are developing in a way that meets the requirements of the new commitments that, sadly, we must take on from time to time?

Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend is quite right. I am pleased that we have been able to adapt our forces to the modern world, and we are now able to devote about 40 per cent. of the total defence budget to buying the equipment that our forces need. Having the best weaponry, intelligence and command and control of the modern battlefield is essential, and having rapidly deployable forces means that we have an important extra element of deterrence so that we can show resolve quickly when an international crisis may be about to erupt.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Secretary of State agree that the readiness for rapid deployment depends upon adequate funding for the armed services? Yesterday, a national newspaper that is normally sympathetic to the Government called for a defence review and revealed that, in spite of promises to the contrary, there will be a 3 per cent. cut in defence expenditure in real terms next year. How will that assist rapid deployment?

Mr. Portillo: I am surprised at the hon. and learned Gentleman, who is a member of the Select Committee on Defence, as I explained all this in great detail to the Select Committee a day or two after the Budget. I made it perfectly clear then that, in the present year, the extra £380 million that is being spent has been carried forward from previous years. We have been granted £244 million for this present year for extra costs in Bosnia, and those two figures together come to about 3 per cent. of the defence budget. Of course more money is being spent this year than the plans for next year, but next year's spending will not turn out to be just the planned amount because we shall again be spending money on Bosnia. In reciting what The Daily Telegraph has said, the hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to compare apples and pears, and one cannot compare outcome with plan.

Mr. Key: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the readiness for rapid deployment of Britain's forces. May I invite him to consider the contribution made not only by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency but by the thousands of civilian industrial workers throughout the country, including those at Boscombe Down, for example, which I visited only last week? I was told that they had never had as much work as they have now, with more than 40 different projects at that one establishment.

Mr. Portillo: DERA makes an outstanding contribution. My hon. Friend raises a broader point that is well worth emphasising: we often pay tribute, as we should, to our armed forces, but they are able to do what they do only because of the tremendous back-up from civil servants centrally in London, in the complex of

14 Jan 1997 : Column 117

establishments throughout the country and deployed abroad. It is a combined military and civilian effort and I pay tribute to both sides with great pleasure.

Mr. Barry Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the future large aircraft project would assist deployment of our troops overseas? What talks has he had with British Aerospace on the matter and can he tell us whether the French and Germans are prepared to come in and guarantee the project?

Mr. Portillo: All three countries--including ourselves--have expressed great interest in the future large aircraft. We certainly have a need for future heavy lift capability that has not yet been met in our plans. At present, the Germans and the French have been unable to identify any funding in their programme for the aircraft, and I have no more news about that. I have no doubt, however, that we shall need aircraft beyond the C130J that we have already ordered, and our interest in the project is well known to the House.

Mr. Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that our rapid deployment capability, and indeed our wider military capabilities, are heavily dependent on the armed forces having a breathing space of stability? Does he further agree that the threat of a full-scale defence review is the last thing that they need to settle down?

Mr. Portillo: Yes, the idea of a defence review will be extremely depressing and discouraging for our armed forces. I was, frankly, surprised to see the idea endorsed in The Daily Telegraph. It would have an extremely deleterious effect on our armed forces. We have completely changed the orientation of our forces because the cold war has come to an end and we have redirected forces and developed a rapid deployment capability. There is absolutely no need for a defence review and everyone in the House knows why the Opposition advocate one: they want to cut defence and they do not have the courage to come out and say it. We know that many on their Back Benches long to cut defence, but we shall deny them the opportunity so to do.

Ministerial Responsibilities

4. Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Minister is responsible for manpower levels in his Department. [8973]

Mr. Soames: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has overall responsibility for all defence matters.

Mr. Gunnell: I understood that the Minister had specific responsibility for manpower. Does he take personal responsibility for the fact that, because he has cut the armed forces by a third, manpower in the Army is 5,000 short? Is that any way to run the defence of the country?

Mr. Soames: I answered the question in that manner because of my natural deference and modesty. It is indeed true that I am responsible to my right hon. Friend for manpower levels. It is also true, as the hon. Gentleman says, that we have difficulties in recruiting. The reasons are well known by the House and have been rehearsed on many

14 Jan 1997 : Column 118

occasions. The hon. Gentleman must not paint too dim a picture; it is a difficult situation but we are making real progress. Army recruiting this year stands at 86 per cent. of its target so far, the figure for the Royal Air Force is 95 per cent. and the Royal Marines have recruited 100 per cent. of the target for officers and 87 per cent. for marines.

The picture is much improved, but the House should not be deceived for one minute into believing that the matter can be resolved easily or overnight. We live in a competitive and difficult environment and we have to work extremely hard to get the excellent young men and women whom we need.

Mr. Wilkinson: Is it not reassuring that my hon. Friend does not shrink from taking his personal responsibilities in these matters? He is no shrinking violet in any sense or form. On the recruitment figures, is it not thoroughly encouraging that recruiting should be so relatively high at a time when unemployment nationally is continuing to drop? It is essential that Her Majesty's forces can continue to attract high-quality manpower and the Government are taking a range of measures to do just that.

Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right and, as he and I said, we live in a competitive world in which a lot of other people are after the same high quality of young men and young women that we seek to attract into our armed forces. We have to make it an attractive career, which it is. They should come in, because they will find good comradeship, wonderful training, great opportunities, adventure and excitement. They will find that they can undertake no more satisfying career. The Duke of Wellington's regiment, the King's regiment, the Green Howards, the Light Dragoons and the Second Royal Tank regiment are all over strength. The problem is not found throughout the Army, but in certain specified and difficult areas and we are doing our best to ensure that those matters are dealt with expeditiously in the Army and the other two services.

Dr. David Clark: Can the Minister explain how, having spent £1,500 million on redundancy payments in recent years, Army recruitment last year was 25 per cent. under target and we have a shortfall of between 5,000 and 6,000 soldiers? Can he let us into his little secret?

Mr. Soames: This from an hon. Gentleman who, in an interview with the New Statesman and Society decided, on defence diversification, that the Thompson sonar could be used in fish farms. This is the man who asks me about the running of defence. He knows perfectly well that, having been through "Options for Change", the Army regretfully and sadly shed a large number of people to maintain the level of experience and age profile that it needs. To be able to fight--to do its business--it needs to recruit a constant stream of young people all the time. That is what we are doing. For the hon. Gentleman to portray this as some sort of mismanagement is ridiculous, dishonest and ignorant.

---