Previous SectionIndexHome Page


"Options for Change"

5. Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recommendations arising from "Options for Change" are yet to be implemented. [18039]

Mr. Portillo: All the restructuring arising from "Options for Change" has been completed.

Mr. Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that our services have dealt admirably with the changes that have resulted from "Options for Change"? Does he agree that

11 Mar 1997 : Column 130

a peace dividend can be spent only once, and that we have spent it? The last thing our services need is a review such as the one threatened by the Labour party, should it form the next Government. We all know what a review means: it is new Labourspeak for cuts, cuts and yet more cuts which would savage our services and wreck procurement jobs in the north-west and elsewhere, decimating defence manufacturing industry in this country.

Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend speaks with real feeling because jobs are at risk in his constituency and in other constituencies throughout the country. He is absolutely right to say that the armed forces led through the "Options for Change" exercise--and led brilliantly. That enabled our armed forces to adapt to change better than those of any other country. That has now been done; we are now adapted to the new world in which the cold war is over.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the defence dividend cannot be taken again and again. Because we have kept our defence strategy fully up to date, there is no need for a strategic defence review. The only reason for the review proposed by Labour is to initiate defence cuts. The attitude of Labour Members shows that they do not care about defence. Even if there were a Labour Secretary of State for Defence who cared about defence--I do not see one in prospect--he would get no support from his Back Benchers and would thus be naked in the struggle to defend the defence budget.

Dr. Reid: That is priceless, coming from the man who instigated the biggest cut in, and the most shambolic continual restructuring of, the armed forces every year for the past decade. Does he realise that any review that we carried out, unlike his efforts, would start by involving the chiefs of staff? Unlike his, it would guarantee two years of financial stability, as we have already made clear. Unlike his, it would interleave foreign affairs and defence, giving us some form of strategy. And unlike him, we would avoid the annual big-bang restructuring.

Have not the right hon. Gentleman and the Government been incoherent in strategy, incompetent in finance and indifferent in welfare? We have always known that the Tories cannot be trusted with the health service; we now know that they cannot be trusted on defence either.

Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman leads with his chin. He has no authority whatsoever from the shadow Chancellor or from the Leader of the Opposition to say that there will be stability under a Labour Government. He has authority to say only that there will be a defence review, and that is why at no time will any Labour Member say what we need to hear: that any of the projects that this Government have ordered are exempt from the defence review. They will not say it because they are not authorised to do so--they are under the thumb of the shadow Chancellor and of the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition wrote in The Daily Telegraph that it would be dishonest to claim that Labour would restore defence to its former level, so the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) should not risk being dishonest with the House today.

Mr. King: The necessary changes in "Options for Change" were designed to achieve lower manpower levels but ensure that that manpower had the best equipment available in the world at that time, and I congratulate my

11 Mar 1997 : Column 131

right hon. Friend on the way in which that programme has been carried through. I was struck by one particular feature during the period in which the changes were introduced--I was conscious of the united concern of Conservative Members that our defences might be put at risk. Is he aware that, in contrast, no such concern was expressed by Labour Members? All we heard was exactly what we have heard repeated this afternoon--Labour Members pleading for individual equipment orders and pretending that they are in favour of defence, but actually calling for cuts in overall expenditure on every possible occasion.

Mr. Portillo: The strategy conceived by my right hon. Friend has been carried through with great success, and I pay tribute to him for that. We in this country have been willing to undertake difficult changes involving the reduction of numbers and the reduction of the number of bases from which we operate. As a result, we have been able to put more and more money into defence equipment. A rising proportion of the defence budget goes into the sort of equipment that would enable Britain to triumph in future conflicts. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that, throughout that period, he faced legitimate concern from Conservative Back Benchers and no concern from Labour Back Benchers, and that it is the same today. I have been sustained during my two years as Secretary of State for Defence by the tremendous support that I have had from behind me. Any Labour Secretary of State for Defence would know that what his Back Benchers wanted was savage defence cuts to bring us down to the European average--but Britain is not of the European average.

Army (Establishment)

6. Mr. Norman Hogg: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current establishment of the Army. [18040]

Mr. Soames: The current trained manpower establishment of the Regular Army, including Gurkhas but excluding the Royal Irish Regiment (Home Service element), is around 106,000.

Mr. Hogg: Is it not true that the Minister spent £500 million and reduced the Army by 50,000, but wound up with a 5,000 shortfall? How did the Minister get misled into such a muddle?

Mr. Soames: I saw the hon. Gentleman being given a run-through of his question--he did not look overly confident then or as he asked it. He is correct when he says that the Army is currently under strength by 5,339 men and women; however, I have some bad news for him, which means that there is good news for the Army. The Army has already recruited 664 officers from a target of 730 for the year and 13,650 soldiers from a target of 15,100--a 50 per cent. increase on the year. We are devoting huge and valuable resources to recruiting; we have a lot more to do and the hon. Gentleman may be assured that we will do it. The Government are hugely proud of the Army. We have throughout had the clear objective that the Army should be brilliantly trained and properly equipped for future wars and operations, and I am glad to say that that is now the case.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. Friend give me the assurance this afternoon that the Cheshire Regiment is

11 Mar 1997 : Column 132

safe under a Conservative Government, and that there is every chance that the Cheshire Regiment would be in jeopardy under the review that the Labour party would carry out?

Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend is perfectly right. No cap badge in the British Army would be immune from the type of defence review that the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) plans; indeed, the hon. Gentleman has already said that such a review would not be free of pain.

I give my hon. Friend the following assurance: for as long as I am Minister of State for the Armed Forces, for as long as there is a Conservative Government, the Cheshires will be a valued and valuable part of the order of battle of the British Army. Opposition Members would have been proud if they had been able to see, as I did, the way in which the Cheshires conducted themselves in Bosnia.

Dr. Hendron: The Secretary of State is aware of the difficulties for young soldiers patrolling the streets of Northern Ireland, and of the brutal murder by the IRA of Stephen Restorick. Bearing that in mind, does he agree that, difficult as it is for soldiers in Northern Ireland, it is extremely important that at all times they do not inadvertently in some way act as recruiting sergeants for the Provisional IRA in their treatment of young people in the streets?

Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman makes an important and valuable point. In my judgment, the British Army's conduct in Northern Ireland during the past 25 years will be one of the most glorious chapters in the annals of this country's military history. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the British Army has comported itself with great discipline, great skill and great courage on the streets of Belfast, and I wholly endorse exactly what he said.

Mr. Key: Does my hon. Friend agree that it has always been more difficult to recruit for the Army at times of prosperity and falling unemployment? Will he accept my congratulations on the superb advertising campaign run by the Adjutant-General in cinemas and elsewhere? Will he take it from me that, on my last visit to the Army careers office in Salisbury, it was up to target and recruitment was going very well indeed?

Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend--as always--for his support for the armed forces and the Army in particular. I agree entirely that the recent advertising campaign has been a great success. It has won many awards in this country and abroad and we are extremely pleased with it.

I am glad to hear how well recruiting is going in Salisbury. My hon. Friend is right that it is hard, in the south particularly, to recruit when unemployment is falling. We must make greater efforts to give people who enter the Army qualifications that they can use when they leave. We have still a great deal to do, but we shall do it. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support.

Mr. Murphy: Why cannot the Minister accept that although, since the last general election, the Government have spent £500 million on recruitment schemes and £1.5 billion on making service people redundant, he still

11 Mar 1997 : Column 133

manages to get it all wrong, with a shortfall of more than 5,000 in the Army alone? Does not he personally accept responsibility for that fiasco, or is it all the fault of some nameless civil servant?

Mr. Soames: No, it is not the fault of a nameless civil servant; it is the result of a combination of circumstances and events. Recently, we have been in a demographic trough. When the Government came to power, one in eight young people went on to further and higher education; now, one in three do. We are fishing in a much smaller pool, and we need to work much harder to get the high-quality young men and women we need.

For all the hon. Gentleman's bleating and harping on about the failure to recruit the numbers, if he could see the quality of the people we are getting, he would revise his view and understand that we need to continue to invest in giving those young people the skills that they need in the Army, and train them in the Army so that they can go out into a useful civilian career afterwards.


Next Section

IndexHome Page