Defence Expenditure

HC Deb 13 December 1967 vol 756 cc400-3

6. Mr. Frank Allaun

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if, following devaluation, he will state the extra cost, respectively, of the proposed purchase of United States military aircraft, of Polaris missiles, of maintaining the British Army of the Rhine and Great Britain's military bases East of Suez; and what cuts he will now make in these four items of expenditure.

9. Mr. William Hamilton

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the additional cost of maintaining Great Britain's military forces in Germany and Malaysia consequent on devaluation; and to what extent these increases will be taken into account in the proposed overall reduction in military expenditure next year.

Mr. Mason

I have nothing to add at present to the statements made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and my hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Administration in the debate on 27th November and in reply to a Question by the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) on 29th November.— [Vol. 755. c. 43, 154.]

Mr. Allaun

Will the Minister convey to the Cabinet the view of many Labour M.P.s that the whole of the proposed £100 million a year cut should come from arms and not a single penny off the social services?

Mr. Mason

That would be an extremely difficult operation, especially when we have just completed a three-year study in concert with our allies. This is in the Defence White Paper.

Mr. Hamilton

Is my hon. Friend aware that, whatever the increased cost may be consequent on devaluation, we cannot afford it? Will he convey to the proper quarters that the almost unanimous desire on this side of the House is that we should get out of Malaysia very much quicker than we are intending at the moment?

Mr. Mason

My hon. Friend should be aware that when we announced the £100 million cuts a week or so ago they were a cut-back of planned expenditure in the course of the next year.

Mr. Hugh Fraser

Will the hon. Gentleman explain what negotiations are going on to improve the offset agreements with the United States Government?

Mr. Mason

It is a little early to give a specific reply, because we are taking some time to work out the whole effects of devaluation, not only on aircraft and Polaris, but on stationing and equipment in the Far East and Middle East or generally.

Mr. Sheldon

The Home Secretary, when Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time of devaluation, said specifically that arms cuts would be £100 million next year. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence produced the figure of £67 million in the debate on 27th November. Will my hon. Friend say which of these was right?

Mr. Mason

The £ 100 million cutback has taken place. We did not take into consideration devaluation or cancellation charges, but that was agreed to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Be under no illusion, £100 million has been cut out of projected expenditure during 1968–69.

Mr. Powell

Is the hon. Gentleman in a position to say whether the net redaction to which his hon. Friend has referred will be nearer £35 million or £60 million?

Mr. Mason

No, Sir.

7. Mr. Frank Allaun

asked the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will state what, in view of his announced £ 100 million a year cut in arms expenditure, will be the estimated expenditure at current 1967 prices for 1967–68, 1968–69 and 1969–70; what reductions will be made beyond those mentioned in the July Defence White Paper; and what further reductions of forces manpower are planned.

Mr. Mason

As my right hon. Friend made clear in the Adjournment debate on defence on 27th November, the recently announced savings of £100 million represent a cut on the planned and announced defence expenditure total for the next financial year. I am not prepared to go further than he did on that occasion in anticipating future defence estimates.

Mr. Allaun

Is it not a fact that at current prices over the next three years there will be no reduction at all? Does the Minister really believe that we should bankrupt ourselves in a vain attempt to maintain a world military rôle?

Mr. Mason

My hon. Friend should be aware that we made a pledge in 1964 that we would keep defence expenditure down to £ 2,000 million at 1964 prices and we would achieve it by 1970. We are managing to bring it down to £1,900 million two years earlier than planned.

Mr. Ramsden

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he did not answer that part of the Question about what his right hon. Friend said that other day, namely, that no further reductions in manpower are planned?

Mr. Mason

Not that I am aware of.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins

Will my hon. Friend point out to his Cabinet colleagues that no really effective reduction can be made in defence expenditure without a reduction of commitments? Will he explain that what needs to be done is a reduction in commitments so that the Forces do not suffer by a reduction as a result of cuts in defence expenditure?

Mr. Mason

If that were to be done, I hope my hon. Friend will realise it could not be done unilaterally or quickly. It has to be done in concert with our Allies, with whom, of course, we have military pacts.

Sir C. Osborne

When will these cuts become effective, and are they sufficient to save sterling?

Mr. Mason

In the planned year as promised, 1968–69.

Mr. Allaun

On a point of order. Unless the Defence Minister is ill, should we not be told why, when we have a whole series of Questions to him, he is not here to answer them?

Mr. Speaker

That is not a point of order for Mr. Speaker.