§ 13. Mr. Peter Morrisonasked the Secretary of State for Defence what is his present estimate of the number who will lose their jobs as a direct result of the defence cuts made since he took office.
§ Mr. William RodgersThere will be about 38,000 jobs lost for Service men and up to 40,000 for directly-employed civilians. Actual redundancies will amount to about 10,000 for Service men but I cannot yet predict a firm figure for Ministry of Defence civilians.
In the defence industries there will be a loss of some 73,000 job opportunities over the five years to 1979–80, compared with those required under the programme we inherited.
§ Mr. MorrisonIf, as is apparent, the right hon. Gentleman accepts that defence cuts must mean a loss of jobs, does he agree that Left-wing Labour Members who want less defence expenditure but more defence jobs are asking for the impossible?
§ Mr. RodgersIt is impossible to have defence savings without painful consequences in human and employment terms. However, I would not rest on that argument in saying that we should have no defence cuts. We have to strike a 239 balance with the best use of resources. As I said before, I hope that as the economy turns up we shall be able to redeploy those who might otherwise have found their work in the defence industries in the years ahead.
§ Mr. FernyhoughDoes my right hon. Friend agree that whatever jobs may be lost by the suggested cuts in defence, they are insignificant compared to the number of jobs which would be lost if public expenditure was cut by the amount demanded by the Opposition over the past 18 months?
§ Mr. RodgersI agree with my right hon. Friend, but I have never been quite clear about the size of the cuts which the Opposition have demanded. They have generally been vague in demanding more, without being specific about the direction in which the axe would fall. In general, my right hon. Friend is quite right—unemployment would be a great deal higher today if public expenditure savings had to go much further.
§ Mr. WallIs the Minister aware that there will be widespread redundancies at Hawker Siddeley, in my constituency, unless that company is allowed to accept an order for the South African Buccaneer? In view of the Russian build-up in that part of the world, should not these export orders now be granted?
§ Mr. RodgersNo, they should not. We have discussed these matters before and successive Governments have recognised good and sufficient policy reasons for imposing limitations on defence exports. I realise that occasionally that may be galling, but it is the political framework within which the defence export part of the industry must work.
§ Mr. ClemitsonIs my right hon. Friend prepared to publish a detailed breakdown on how the estimate was reached? Does he not agree that unless we have a very detailed breakdown of the estimate of jobs lost, we cannot devise sensible policies about the redeployment of labour?
§ Mr. RodgersI should be happy to give my hon. Friend such a breakdown as he may require if he would be more specific. Although we must accept direct responsibility for job opportunities lost among Service men and Ministry of Defence civilians, it is not always possible 240 to give precise numbers and consequences for the defence contracting industries, because we shall never know exactly where people may be deployed from defence work which they would otherwise have done.
§ Mrs. ChalkerWill the Minister bear in mind the very high level of unemployment on Merseyside and also the high level of skills used on the first Type 42 warship at the Cammell Laird yard when he places the second contract, which he has in hand at present.
§ Mr. RodgersI shall take account of that. Despite some of the problems in the shipbuilding industry at present, a number of yards have a good record in naval shipbuilding. We hope that we shall be able to help employment in a number of areas in the months ahead by placing naval orders, which we may still do with our programme, even at its reduced level.