HC Deb 05 February 1974 vol 868 cc1015-8
3. Mr. Roy Hughes

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he now proposes to make any further cuts in defence expenditure in the light of the most recent trade figures.

Mr. Ian Gilmour

I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) on 28th January.—[Vol. 868, c. 25.]

Mr. Hughes

Does not the right hon. Gentleman concede that Britain spends a higher proportion of its gross national product on the defence of Western Europe than any other country except Portugal? Does he not feel that it is about time we made a start on phasing out the facade of the so-called nuclear deterrent? Perhaps we would then be able to pay our coal miners a reasonable wage.

Mr. Gilmour

It is true that we spend a higher proportion of our gross national product on defence than most of our Western European allies. We spend a very much smaller proportion than the USSR or the USA. It is also true that the proportion of gross national product is not the only criterion by which to judge defence expenditure. For instance, the French spend the same amount as we do and the Germans spend a great deal more. In reply to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, it would be totally inappropriate and against the wishes of the vast majority of the House that we should phase out our nuclear deterrent.

Mr. Wall

While congratulating my right hon. Friend upon his appointment, may I ask him whether he is aware that many of us believe that his main task will be to stand up for the Armed Forces against the Treasury? Can he assure us that the maritime Harrier will not be the victim of any cuts, because it is vital to the Royal Navy in defending the realm?

Mr. Gilmour

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words. I should not like to be thought to be opposed to Her Majesty's Treasury—

Mr. McNamara

Why not?

Mr. Gilmour

Not more than most people, anyway. As to the maritime Harrier, my hon. Friend knows that this matter has been very near to a decision for some time. I cannot promise an immediate decision.

Mr. Peart

May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon his appointment as Secretary of State. I wish him well.

Mr. William Hamilton

Speak for yourself.

Mr. Peart

I do. If an hon. Member says that behind my back, may I say that I would rather speak for myself. If there are to be any cuts, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that they are not made unilaterally in a wide sense in relation to the nuclear deterrent but rather that we achieve a multilateral arrangement?

Mr. Gilmour

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for what he has said. I agree that the cuts should be most carefully considered and should not fall on any one special part of our defence expenditure.

8. Mr. Hugh Jenkins

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy, whenever cuts in civil expenditure are proposed, to propose greater proportionate cuts in defence expenditure; and if he will make proposals for such reductions.

Mr. Ian Gilmour

No, Sir.

Mr. Jenkins

Why does the right hon. Gentleman persist in being so recalcitrant? Why will he not enable Opposition back benchers to join my right hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) in welcoming him in his new appointment? If he goes on behaving like this, he will get no welcome from the Opposition. Even his right hon. Friends are getting fed up with him. Will he consider this matter again? In particular, will he bear in mind that the people of this country are bearing a larger taxation burden in respect of defence than are the people of most other countries? Why should they continue to do so?

Mr. Gilmour

The hon. Gentleman is repeating in different words the question which was asked by the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Roy Hughes). Defence is not just a matter of looking at the gross national product and deciding what to spend. It should be related to the needs of the country and to the expenditure of possible opponents. Moreover, it is not the only criterion upon which to measure the defence expenditure of the country.

Mr. Fell

Will my right hon. Friend persuade the Opposition to tell the House and the nation exactly what is their policy towards the defence of the country? Do they want to cut defence expenditure by £500 million or £1,000 million? What is the figure?

Mr. Gilmour

My hon. Friend is right in saying that there is a good deal of ambiguity about this. The right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that the popular figure now is £1,000 million, is it not?

Mr. Maclennan

Will the Minister explain how he proposes to make his savings of £250 million already announced for the year 1974–75? Are they to come through the postponement of projects or cancellation?

Mr. Gilmour

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) has tabled a later Question on this subject.

Mr. Peart

In view of the challenge thrown out by the Secretary of State, may I say that it is true that the Government have announced a cut? Reference has been made to a cut of £1,000 million, but that is not the policy of the Labour Party. No responsible Opposition leader on defence could give a specific figure— [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?] I am being honest and frank—

Mr. Speaker

Order. It is not the right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) who is being questioned.

Mr. Gilmour

Nobody would accuse the right hon. Gentleman of being dishonest or of not being candid, but I do not accept that he is right in saying that it would be wrong for the Opposition to announce their defence policy before an election. That seems to me to be very odd.

14. Mr. John Morris

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will now give details of the proposed defence cuts.

Mr. Ian Gilmour

I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) and others on 15th January.—[Vol. 867, c. 29.]

Mr. Morris

Is not the Secretary of State treating the House with contempt? Does he not recall that on 18th December he said that he had not yet quite settled where the final cuts were to be made? Is it right for the House, let alone for the Forces, to be kept in ignorance week after week by the dithering of the Government? Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that it is good for recruiting to keep the House in ignorance of the Government's intentions?

Mr. Gilmour

There is no question of contempt of the House or of dithering, but the present economic uncertainty is bound to have an effect on the defence programme. It would be quite unwise and inexcusable to make specific cuts now to reduce the programme by cancelling or deferring specific major projects if this should turn out to be unnecessary.

Mr. Burden

Can my right hon. Friend at least give an undertaking that there will be no cut-back in the dockyards which give support to Royal Naval nuclear vessels?

Mr. Gilmour

My hon. Friend probably heard me say in reply to an earlier Question that we have every intention of maintaining the effectiveness of our nuclear deterrent.