HC Deb 12 June 1968 vol 766 cc222-4
22. Sir Clive Bossom

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the latest re-engagement figures for all three Services; and what were the comparable figures for 1964.

26. Mr. Brian Harrison

asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what are the latest re-engagement figures for the Royal Navy; and how these compare with 1964;

(2) what are the latest re-engagement figures for the Army; and how these compare with 1964.

28. Mr. van Stranbenzee

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the latest re-engagement figures; for the Royal Air Force; and how these compare with 1964.

Mr. Reynolds

As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir Clive Bossom

Is it not a fact that this dramatic fall-off is due to lack of confidence and, until the recent announcement, inadequate pay, and in the Army the further disbanding of units and also of the T.A., so that all three Services must have grave doubts today as to whether the Government really want men to re-engage?

Mr. Reynolds

I would honestly suggest that the hon. Gentleman look at the figures. He will then find it difficult to talk about any fall-off.

Mr. Harrison

Is the right hon. Gentleman confident that the rate of re-engagement is such that there will not be a shortage of technical personnel in the years ahead?

Mr. Reynolds

We are aware that some shortages of technical personnel are likely to arise in all three Services and we are doing our best to recruit people into those branches.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing

Are we really achieving re-engagement figures, which in 1963 were some 60 per cent. of the Royal Navy? Is not the reduction in re-engagement, which is also mentioned in the White Paper on pay, a direct reflection on the muddle and confusion, cancellation of weapons, and the rundown of our Armed Forces? Would not it be wiser, therefore, for the Government to get out and leave the defence of the country to an alternative Government?

Mr. Reynolds

The Questions generally, which are answered in the figures to be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT, refer to comparisons between 1968 and 1964. If hon. Members opposite look at them tomorrow they will see that they cannot make the type of criticism they are now making.

Mr. Rankin

Will my right hon. Friend tell us in money terms what are the earnings of a private in the British Army?

Mr. Reynolds

I think that it would be much better if a Question were put down, because the earnings vary quite a lot depending on the trade, the length of the period for which the individual engaged and a number of other factors. If my hon. Friend puts down a Question I shall be only too willing to give him the figures. I hope to place details of the revised rates of pay in the Library next week.

Mr. Maudling

The report of the Prices and Incomes Board refers to a serious situation which will arise on present trends in recruiting and re-engagement.

Mr. Reynolds

I am aware that some difficulties are likely to arise in certain specific areas in all three Services. The figures that I was asked for and am producing for the House do not back up the allegations which hon. Gentlemen opposite are making without having first looked at them.

Following are the figures:

The re-engagement figures for men covering the first quarter of 1968 and the first quarter of 1964 are as follows:—

First Quarter 1968 First Quarter 1964
Royal Navy and Royal Marines
To 9 years — 4
14 years 251 240
22 years 507 439
Others 84 92
Army
To 6 years 7 10
9 years 954 1,163
15 years 907 601
22 years 104 147
Others 1,550 1,046
Royal Air Force
To less than 8 years 15 16
9 years or over (other than 22 years and over) 571 81
Re-engagement for Pension 557 63
Re-engagement for a further period 12 7

A comparison of the re-engagement figures in 1967 with those of the previous three years will be found in my answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) on 7th February.—[Vol. 758, c. 143–4.]