§ 4. Mr. GunnellTo ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Minister is responsible for manpower levels in his Department. [8973]
§ Mr. SoamesMy right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has overall responsibility for all defence matters.
§ Mr. GunnellI understood that the Minister had specific responsibility for manpower. Does he take personal responsibility for the fact that, because he has cut the armed forces by a third, manpower in the Army is 5,000 short? Is that any way to run the defence of the country?
§ Mr. SoamesI answered the question in that manner because of my natural deference and modesty. It is indeed true that I am responsible to my right hon. Friend for manpower levels. It is also true, as the hon. Gentleman says, that we have difficulties in recruiting. The reasons are well known by the House and have been rehearsed on many 118 occasions. The hon. Gentleman must not paint too dim a picture; it is a difficult situation but we are making real progress. Army recruiting this year stands at 86 per cent. of its target so far, the figure for the Royal Air Force is 95 per cent. and the Royal Marines have recruited 100 per cent. of the target for officers and 87 per cent. for marines.
The picture is much improved, but the House should not be deceived for one minute into believing that the matter can be resolved easily or overnight. We live in a competitive and difficult environment and we have to work extremely hard to get the excellent young men and women whom we need.
§ Mr. WilkinsonIs it not reassuring that my hon. Friend does not shrink from taking his personal responsibilities in these matters? He is no shrinking violet in any sense or form. On the recruitment figures, is it not thoroughly encouraging that recruiting should be so relatively high at a time when unemployment nationally is continuing to drop? It is essential that Her Majesty's forces can continue to attract high-quality manpower and the Government are taking a range of measures to do just that.
§ Mr. SoamesI am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right and, as he and I said, we live in a competitive world in which a lot of other people are after the same high quality of young men and young women that we seek to attract into our armed forces. We have to make it an attractive career, which it is. They should come in, because they will find good comradeship, wonderful training, great opportunities, adventure and excitement. They will find that they can undertake no more satisfying career. The Duke of Wellington's regiment, the King's regiment, the Green Howards, the Light Dragoons and the Second Royal Tank regiment are all over strength. The problem is not found throughout the Army, but in certain specified and difficult areas and we are doing our best to ensure that those matters are dealt with expeditiously in the Army and the other two services.
§ Dr. David ClarkCan the Minister explain how, having spent £1,500 million on redundancy payments in recent years, Army recruitment last year was 25 per cent. under target and we have a shortfall of between 5,000 and 6,000 soldiers? Can he let us into his little secret?
§ Mr. SoamesThis from an hon. Gentleman who, in an interview with the New Statesman and Society decided, on defence diversification, that the Thompson sonar could be used in fish farms. This is the man who asks me about the running of defence. He knows perfectly well that, having been through "Options for Change", the Army regretfully and sadly shed a large number of people to maintain the level of experience and age profile that it needs. To be able to fight—to do its business—it needs to recruit a constant stream of young people all the time. That is what we are doing. For the hon. Gentleman to portray this as some sort of mismanagement is ridiculous, dishonest and ignorant.