§ 8. Mr. John EvansTo ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about future employment prospects for his Department's personnel.
§ Mr. HanleyIt is our aim to ensure that we have the right balance of service and civilian manpower to enable the armed forces to carry out the full range of tasks that we require of them.
§ Mr. EvansIs the Minister aware that the proposed market testing of the Defence Accounts Agency on Merseyside is causing fear and anxiety among the 850 employees there? They are worried about their employment prospects. Will the Minister concede that the commercial confidentiality of the information processed at that office is in danger of being jeopardised, thereby putting more British defence jobs at risk? Why does he not tell the Treasury that that is a privatisation too far?
§ Mr. HanleyI readily admit that the hon. Gentleman has fought hard for the unit involved. However, we have conducted our review of it fully and openly. Trade unions were consulted about the proposals, the changes were fully explained to staff and those who must move have been told about the relocation allowances that will be available to them. Nine of the posts have already been transferred and we expect to move about 19 to Bath, Glasgow and Swindon later this year, seven to London towards the end of 1995 and the balance to RAF Wyton in 1996.
§ Mr. JesselIs my hon. Friend aware that, among service personnel, none are more popular than British Army bands, whose splendid standards of excellence are world famous as a result of the unique training that they receive at the Royal Military school of music at Kneller Hall in Twickenham?
§ Mr. HanleyI willingly recognise my hon. and musical Friend's interest in Kneller Hall. I also recognise that for him Kneller Hall is the front line and the rest of the British Army is support.
§ Mr. Donald AndersonA few moments ago, I understood the Secretary of State to say that there would be no further cuts in front-line manpower. We shall examine that claim carefully in July, when the defence costs study is published. It is rumoured that there will be at least 25,000 further cuts.
Is the Secretary of State aware that in the statement on defence estimates published in April, for the first time, no targets for manpower were set? What is the motive for that? Is the Secretary of State, in effect, trying to disguise further, regular cuts? May we have an assurance that in July, after the study has been published, there will be period of calm and stability when our services can look forward to a stable future?
§ Mr. HanleyI think that the hon. Gentleman is a little muddled on three counts. First, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said that there would be no cut in the front-line capability of our armed forces—he was not talking about support. Secondly, in the "Statement on the 146 Defence Estimates 1994", civilian numbers are forecast to fall to 128,700–113,000 based in the United Kingdom and 15,700 locally entered. Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman should remember that Labour is fighting under a European socialist manifesto, which contains a specific pledge to cut armed forces.
§ Mr. BrazierWill my hon. Friend confirm, on the civilian side, that while there has been a progressive reduction in the number of vital scientists and engineers, the one category of civil servants that has expanded in the past decade has been that dealing with budget holding? May I suggest that, in the defence costs study, the place to use the knife is the growing army of people involved in counting to the last penny?
§ Mr. HanleyI assure my hon. Friend that that is one of the objectives of the defence costs study.