§ 11. Mr. Anthony CoombsTo ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the current numbers of Royal Air Force officers of air rank, Army officers of general rank and Royal Navy officers of equivalent rank; and what were the comparable figures for 1988.
§ Mr. HanleyThe number of two-star appointments in the Royal Navy at 1 April 1988 was 60 and at 1 April 1993 was 51. The equivalent figures for the Army are 83 and 77, and for the RAF 60 and 56. These figures include officers in NATO appointments, on training courses and on terminal leave.
§ Mr. CoombsGiven the significant reductions in numbers that have taken place in service personnel over the past five years, does my hon. Friend agree that it is important for service morale that any future reductions are made on a proportional basis between senior and other ranks? What plans does he have up to 1995 to ensure that that principle is adhered to?
§ Mr. HanleyMy hon. Friend is right. The number of service posts at two-star level and above has already been reduced by 15 per cent. since 1990, and by 1995 that figure will have risen to 24 per cent. For all of the forces overall —in other words, for all ranks—the figure between 1990 and 1995 will be 22 per cent. For their part, the Government have, over the same time scale, reduced the number of serving Ministers at the Ministry of Defence from four to three—a reduction of 25 per cent. The Opposition's policy is unclear.
§ Dr. ReidCan the Minister explain why the Ministry of Defence is about to spend £2.5 million to recruit soldiers immediately after putting thousands of soldiers out of work under "Options for Change"? Is it not bad enough that we should be building submarines to sell them and refurbishing tanks to get rid of them without spending millions of pounds more of taxpayers' money to replace soldiers who have been made redundant? For all his excuses about balance of age and rank, has he not merely got his sums wrong? While I am on that subject, perhaps 189 I should inform him that, with all its collective wisdom, the Ministry of Defence is still unable to figure out how many acres there are in a hectare: it is not 2.2, but 2.471.
§ Mr. HanleyThe hon. Gentleman's knowledge of European affairs is clearly deeper than mine and I am grateful for the lesson. It is nice that he can teach me that, at least. As to the hon. Gentleman's other point, he must know that every part of the armed services needs new people of varying ages, qualities and ranks. We need a continuing review of our recruitment. Therefore, what he says is quite wrong. Furthermore, it is vital that we keep equipment tailored to meet the threats.
§ Mr. Ian TaylorWill my hon. Friend accept that the shrinkage of the armed services under the "Options for Change" package has been widely understood, although there has been some detailed resistance? Are not the most important factors in ensuring that the morale of the armed forces is kept up and that they are dedicated to the activities to which they are directed an exact understanding of the strategic responsibilities that our forces are asked to undertake and a proper appreciation among the forces of the various threats that may come from nuclear proliferation causing the use of our rapid reaction forces?
§ Mr. HanleyMy hon. Friend is absolutely right. If people were to dwell upon his words, they would find that they contain great wisdom.