| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Royal Navy (Recruitment)
5. Mr. Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on future recruitment to the Royal Navy. [13718]
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): The recruitment target for the Royal Navy in 1996-97 is some 4,500 people. We expect to achieve 90 per cent. of that target.
Mr. Miller: The Minister will acknowledge my interest in the issue of gapping in the fleet. How important is the role of the Royal Navy Sea Cadets in meeting his targets in the long term? How does he expect training ship Forward in my constituency to obtain the resources that it needs for a new building when his colleagues in the Tory-controlled county council and the relevant Departments are failing to provide them in the youth budget? If he is serious about the role of the Sea Cadets, is it not time that he had serious discussions with his colleagues to get the equation right?
Mr. Soames: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking about sea cadets in his constituency. I do not know the exact details, but I would be happy to look into the matter if he would do me the courtesy of writing to me about it. Some sea cadets inevitably go on to the Royal Navy. They are very welcome; we need all the sea cadets we can get. The Opposition fundamentally misunderstand the true nature of the problem. There is a huge demographic hole in Britain. There are one third fewer 17 and 18-year-olds than there were even only 15 years ago. The number of people aged 16 to 24 fell by a sixth in the same period. More young people than ever go into further and higher education. That has greatly reduced our recruiting pool. I am happy to confirm that the more sea cadets go into the Navy the better, but we do not regard the cadets as a major source of recruits, rather as a valuable part of the source.
Mr. Robathan: Has my hon. Friend seen the comments to a Senate committee of General Reimer, the
US Army chief of staff, because they relate to the use of women in Royal Navy ships? Will he consider them and, in the light of some high-profile tribunal and court cases involving the Royal Navy, study again the policy that has led to women serving on Royal Navy ships and the disruption that it has regrettably caused?
Mr. Soames: I shall certainly study the remarks to which my hon. Friend has drawn my attention, but it is unlikely that they would deflect us from existing policy. I do not agree with the point that he is getting at. Women in the Royal Navy make an invaluable contribution. I regret it when matters go badly wrong, as they clearly did, but we would not be without them; they are marvellous people.
Mr. Murphy: Does the Minister agree that the Navy's recruitment target is down by almost 12 per cent? Having made thousands of service men and women redundant, he has had to open recruitment offices that he previously closed. Does he not understand that the country will judge the so-called manpower policy as mismanaged, mishandled and mistaken, especially when he has the cheek to accuse Labour of wanting to make defence cuts after his Government have reduced our Navy to its smallest size since Trafalgar?
Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on every count. Royal Navy recruiting targets have not fallen but doubled. We hope this year to recruit at least 90 per cent. of the target. The Opposition have constantly used redundancies to attack the Government. They are wrong. The redundancies that followed "Options for Change" and the defence cost studies, however regrettable, were inevitable, because the services are a young man's and young woman's business. The redundancies were essentially among older service men and women. The Army alone needs 15,000 young recruits a year. We have a great deal to do and are working hard at it. The hon. Gentleman's thoroughly irresponsible attack on service recruiting does nothing but damage to the image of the armed forces in the eyes of the public.
Defence Spending
6. Sir Irvine Patnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received on the effect on maintenance of existing military equipment of reducing United Kingdom defence spending to the European average. [13719]
Mr. Portillo: A reduction in UK defence expenditure to the current NATO European average would involve cuts of around £5,000 million a year. That would have a devastating effect on the capability of our armed forces.
Sir Irvine Patnick: Would not such an action--which has been endorsed by Labour conference after Labour conference--reduce employment in places such as Sheffield and the defence capability of this country? The bleatings from Opposition Members show that that is Labour's intended defence policy, which must be deplored.
Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have been treated this afternoon to a display by old Labour, and we have seen the old danger lurking within the Labour party. [Interruption.] One Labour Member after another has risen to make his case, and some of those who are now jeering agree with those hon. Members. We know that Labour wishes to cut our defences and that many Labour Members would like to reduce our armed forces to the armed wing of Oxfam. We must not let those policies into this country. Labour cannot be trusted on defence.
Dr. Reid: I do not know about old Labour, but it is nice to hear the old pacifist--the old conscientious objector. He is the first in history to become Defence Secretary while forgetting his past. He stands there posing as the Braveheart of the defence budget, but the truth is that he has cut the budget by 31 per cent. in real terms--the RAF by 31 per cent. and the Navy by 38 per cent. The louder he roars, the more he proves his own inadequacy, and his incapacity to defend this country's defence budget.
Mr. Portillo: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is interested in the truth, but let me tell him once and for all that I have never been a pacifist or a conscientious objector. He entirely misses the point. European countries have in general reduced their defence spending, but Britain remains towards the top of the European average. His party wants to reduce our defence spending to the European average. In other words, whatever reductions may have been made, his party wants to cut defence spending further. He does not have to look far to see those--they are now looking away--who want to cut defence spending to the European average. The difference between where we are now and the European average is £5,000 million; he cannot wriggle off that figure.
Sir Dudley Smith: Is not my right hon. Friend absolutely right to say that our defence spending in the past 17 years has been creditable compared with that of many of our European counterparts? Should there not be an increase in defence spending in other European countries to help provide a stable Europe in the future?
Mr. Portillo: Any talk about a greater European security and defence identity must be based on European capabilities. Levels of defence spending across Europe today are appreciably lower than they were, and that is why I have no aspiration to descend to the European average. That is why we must resist any party--or any party that is full of members--dedicated to reducing spending to the European average. That party is the Labour party, and that is why we cannot trust it.
Belize
7. Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what expenditure his Department forecasts will be spent on assistance to the Government of Belize in the current year; and what was the figure in 1992-93. [13720]
Mr. Soames: Since the withdrawal of the garrison in 1994, we have continued to provide Belize with a wide range of military assistance, including training courses in the UK and the provision of loan service personnel. Details are confidential between Governments.
Mr. Gunnell: The withdrawal of troops has had a massive effect on the economy of Belize. Is the Minister satisfied that that has not made the country more vulnerable to incursions from Guatemala? I welcome the fact that training takes place--particularly of Territorials--in Belize, but will he ensure that the troops do not use the local fauna, many of which are endangered, for target practice?
Mr. Soames: The services never abuse local fauna; we are against abusing local fauna--[Laughter.] Oh yes, we are--almost all local fauna anyway, and some flora. I am happy to confirm that Belize is an extraordinarily important training area for us. At this moment, 280 members of three London-based Territorial Army units, 10 Para, 4 Royal Greenjackets and the Honourable Artillery Company are in Belize to carry out jungle training, and 2 Para are currently undertaking parachute training there.
The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that relations with Guatemala are much improved, and I take his point that the withdrawal of the garrison would have had, in some way, a momentarily unhappy effect on the economy. However, that has certainly been put right, and we enjoy the most excellent relations with Belize. The Prime Minister of Belize, Mr. Manuel Esquivel, came to London last November, and the leader of the opposition, Mr. Said Musa, came in September. The Overseas Development Administration continues to run a substantial aid programme in Belize of around £4 million a year.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton:
Having served for a short time in Her Majesty's services, may I state my belief--with which I hope my hon. Friend agrees--that it is vital that we maintain defence spending on assisting such countries as Belize? Is not that one of the reasons why we spend towards the top of the average of European countries on defence--our interests lie in all four corners of the world and not only within Europe?
Mr. Soames:
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Britain retains its supremely effective, efficient and well-equipped armed forces for precisely the reason he gave. Belize is one of the few remaining areas of the world where we are able to undertake jungle training, and it is extremely important for that reason. I am glad to confirm that my right hon. and hon. Friends and everyone connected with defence are determined to maintain the British pre-eminence in skill at arms, which is admired throughout the world. Our people, as my hon. Friend knows, are the benchmark by which all other armed forces are judged.
Mrs. Dunwoody:
Is it not true not only that Belize offers cheap training facilities, but that it has always welcomed the involvement of British forces and the contribution of several aircraft on station to protect against drug runners going to Belize and those countries that are likely to be the unfortunate recipients of drugs?
Mr. Soames:
The hon. Lady is right. Indeed, the West Indies guard ship visits Belize at least once a year, almost always to participate in anti-drugs operations with Belize forces. Similarly, the Army Air Corps flight also liaises and works with the Government of Belize. It would be almost impossible for us to have a better or closer relationship with the people of Belize, and they attach the greatest importance to the presence of our troops there on training.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |