§ 6. Sir G. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been spent on arms bought from the United States of America in the 12 months ended 31st October, 1968, or latest convenient date, including Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force arms supplied from the United States of America; and, having regard to the policy of imports substitution by Her Majesty's Government, what plans he has to reduce United States arms purchases in the next 12 months.
§ Mr. John MorrisAs I informed the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) on 1st May, 1968, expenditure on defence equipment in the United States in 1967–68 amounted to $148 million. Expenditure in the current financial year is expected to reach $235 million. We only buy from the United States—or any other foreign source—if no similar equipment can be produced in the United Kingdom within an acceptable cost or timescale. Any purchases involving foreign exchange are subjected to the most rigorous scrutiny.—[Vol. 763, c. 198.]
§ Sir G. NabarroBut has not the hon. Gentleman observed the trade figures published a few hours ago, which show a further decline? Why is the Ministry of Defence the only Department of State which can contract out of the Government's acclaimed policy of import substitution?
§ Mr. MorrisThe Government—this includes very much the Ministry of Defence—are very conscious of the need for import substitution. We buy from the United States only when no similar equipment is available at the time the Services require it, or when the cost of going it alone would make it considerably more expensive.
§ Mr. Emrys HughesBut how much of these figures represent purchases sanctioned by the previous Conservative Government, especially for Polaris submarines? Could my hon. Friend give us full information about how this is crippling the nation's resources?
§ Mr. MorrisI cannot, without notice, give the details, but certainly the Phantom and the Hercules are significant portions of these items. Second, the dollar cost of cancelling the F111 is likely to be about 60 million dollars, and this is included in these increased figures.
§ Mr. MaudlingWe are glad to know that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about this problem. What we want to know is, what does he propose to do about it? Once again, in the light of the trade figures today, should not the Government look at this problem and try to do something more about reducing the import cost of defence?
§ Mr. MorrisI should have used the word "Polaris" earlier. We are certainly very conscious of this, but there is a limit to the extent that one can go it alone on these matters. What we can do we certainly do, but if we face an unreasonable cost through going it alone, if inter-relation is to mean anything at all, we buy from the best possible source.