§ 1. Mr. Whiteheadasked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total sum spent on defence in the financial year 1913–14 and the total sum in 1974–75, expressed in 1975 prices.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. RoyMason)Expenditure in 1974–75 at 1975 Survey prices as shown in Cmnd. 6393 was £4330.5 million. The Appropriation Accounts for 1913–14 show expenditure on the Army and Navy, less civil superannuation, as £76.6 million. It is not practicable to update the 1913–14 figure to 1975 Survey prices.
§ Mr. WhiteheadDoes my right hon. Friend not agree that the amount we are now spending, compared to the time when we were indisputably a great Power, has not been significantly weakened? Does this not belie the kind of protestations made by the would-be war-lording "red chiffon" who leads the Conservative Party?
§ Mr. MasonMy hon. Friend will appreciate that we have made considerable savings on programmed defence expenditure over the past two years, although we have not got down to the 1913–14 levels.
§ Mr. WallIs the Secretary of State aware of the protests by NATO commanders and politicians at the scale of the proposed British defence cuts?
§ Mr. MasonI was not aware that I had aroused their wrath and anger to that 222 extent. We presented the defence review to the military committee of NATO find gave it the proper consultative period. It spent eight weeks going through it and was satisfied that it did not impinge on our NATO commitment. The same applies to the recent reductions caused by the public expenditure cuts.
§ Mr. Ronald AtkinsIs my right hon. Friend aware that in 1913–14 the attitude of the British Government was that the British Armed Forces should equal those of the rest of the world combined? Is that not the attitude of many Opposition Members today?
§ Mr. MasonI think my hon. Friend's latter point is quite true. Many members of the Opposition, though not all, would like to build up the British Armed Forces to equal those of the Soviet Union. In 1913, we had 313,000 men in the Navy and Army. We did not have an Air Force then.
§ Mr. Evelyn KingWhat was the pay of a soldier in 1914, compared with today? Do the Secretary of State's hon. Friends want to go back to that?
§ Mr. MasonThe pay of a soldier in 1913 was the King's Shilling, food and clothing and 1s. 5d.—7p—per day. Today it is £4.68 per day—67 times as much.
§ 3. Mr. Banksasked the Secretary of State for Defence why he now proposes to cut defence expenditure for the third time in the space of a year having initially carried out the most extensive and thorough review of the United Kingdom system of defence ever undertaken in peacetime.
§ Mr. MasonIt has been necessary for defence to play its part in reducing public expenditure in order to help the economy.
§ Mr. BanksIs it not time the Secretary of State came clean and admitted that this country's defence and safety are being sacrificed for nationalisation and reckless Government expenditure at a time when the Soviet Union's forces are increasing?
§ Mr. MasonI know the hon. Gentleman's interest in defence, but he will soon have to make his position clear. I notice that the Leader of the Opposition takes the view that we do not want further 223 cuts in defence expenditure beyond those already announced. I notice that the imperialistic gladiators below the Opposition Gangway want far more to be spent on defence. I notice that the Bow Group is demanding the cancellation of the through-deck cruisers and the MRCA fighter, and cut-backs in the British Army of the Rhine. The Opposition seem to be split three ways.
§ Mr. James LamondHow can it be claimed that there are any cuts in defence expenditure when the White Paper shows that in real terms we shall be spending more in 1979–80 than we are now?
§ Mr. MasonMy hon. Friend is wrong. He has misread the public expenditure White Paper. When the defence White Paper comes out on 17th March he will see how wrong he is. We are now making real cuts in defence expenditure.
§ Mr. MayhewDid not the Minister of State say in the House 14 months ago that the Government's then proposals represented a judgment, cool and considered, of what we needed to spend to ensure our own security? Does the Minister now say that mat judgment was insufficiently cool or insufficiently considered, or does he say that his present apologia is insufficiently frank?
§ Mr. MasonI always thought that once we had reduced our overseas commitments, reduced our garrison in Hong Kong and withdrawn from Singapore, Gan and Mauritius, there would be a possibility of further pruning support at home. That is what we have been able to do.
§ Mr. Arthur LewisThe Minister said that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) was wrong. As we daily read reports that almost every Department is getting its figures, estimates and forecasts wrong, how can we take cognisance of any figures? Next week we shall be told that they are all wrong.
§ Mr. MasonI hope that my hon. Friend will take time to read the public expenditure survey figures. He will then be able himself to estimate whether we are wrong.
§ Mr. MasonI was suggesting that my hon. Friend was wrong. The tables in the public expenditure White Paper show that defence exenditure is going down from £4,566 million in 1976–77 to £4,530 million in 1979–80.
§ Mr. AmeryIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that a Government who will cut defence expenditure at home and pay out money to the Government of Mozambique, who appear to be threatening British territory, are making a fairly passable immitation of Ethelred the Unready paying out Danegeld?
§ Mr. MasonI am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is again getting on to his old war horse. Aid for Mozambique is not my responsibility. My responsibility is the defence and security of the realm, and I am satisfied that I have not jeopardised that.
§ 10. Mr. James Lamondasked the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the United Kingdom gross domestic product is to be spent on defence in 1975–76.
§ Mr. MasonThe share of the gross national product was estimated at about 5¾ per cent. in last year's Defence White Paper. The share of gross domestic product at factor cost would be about the same.
§ Mr. LamondIf there is to be a reduction in defence expenditure why does Table 1–4 on Page 14 of the White Paper clearly show that this year we shall be spending £4,538 million on defence and in 1979–80 £4,541 million on defence, which seems to me to be an increase of £3 million?
§ Mr. MasonMy hon. Friend does not appreciate that on programmed expenditure in the years to 1979–80 we shall be saving £2,800 million on defence.
§ Mr. GoodhewWill the right hon. Gentleman remind Labour Members that to express our expenditure on defence as a percentage of the gross national product does not really show what we are up to, because with a declining gross national product compared with other countries, it makes it look as if we are doing much more than we really are?
§ Mr. MasonI have explained to the House on many occasions—the hon. 225 Gentleman is aware of this—that we use the defence expenditure as a percentage of GNP because that is the NATO statistic used to make comparisons between nations. Of course, there are other comparisons which can be made but that is the one we usually use as the yardstick.
§ Mr. NewensIs it not a fact that we shall be spending a higher percentage of our GNP on defence than will our major European allies for the best part of the next 10 years? Is is not equally a fact that the heavier burden we have borne in the past is one of the reasons we have not done as well in investment in manufacturing industry as our major European competitors?
§ Mr. MasonIt is likely that we shall be spending in the next five years, by the NATO yardstick, more than our major European allies. Thereafter it may be less, but it depends entirely on growth in the country. As for the switch of resources, my hon. Friend must bear in mind that the defence industries are responsible for at least £600 milion of exports every year.
§ Mr. BlakerWhat percentage of their gross domestic product do the Russians spend on defence? Is it not estimated to be over 10 per cent? Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. King), will the Secretary of State say what is the pay of the Russian private soldier?
§ Mr. MasonOffhand I cannot give the pay of the Russian private, but the hon. Member has information which he received from me, and therefore he could try to surprise me on the question. It is a fact that is now being established by researchers and analysts both here and in the United States that we have certainly underestimated the amount of money that the Russians have been spending on defence, and that that expenditure has been increasing noticeably in the last three years.
§ 16. Mr. Ioan Evansasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a further statement on the proposed cuts in defence expenditure.
§ Mr. MasonI have nothing to add to the replies I gave on 20th February to my hon. Friends the Members for Burnley (Mr. Jones), Liverpool, West Derby 226 (Mr. Ogden) and Hornchurch (Mr. Williams).—[Vol. 906, c. 831–4.]
§ Mr. EvansDoes my right hon. Friend realise that the cuts which are proposed in the White Paper are welcomed as far as they go and that there is a belief that the Government are getting their priorities right if more investment is to be channelled into manufacturing industry and defence expenditure is to be reduced? Will he resist demands by the Conservative Party for increased defence expenditure and at the same time greater cuts in public expenditure?
§ Mr. MasonI tried to explain earlier that there seems to be a split three ways in the Opposition over defence. The right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition has already said that they do not want to go beyond the cuts already announced in defence expenditure. Some Conservative Members demand that a great deal more should be spent on defence. I warn the House that a fifth column is emanating within the Opposition which is demanding cuts in the through-deck cruiser, the MRCA and the British Army of the Rhine. Apart from shattering NATO, what delight that would give the Soviets!
§ Mr. Ian GilmourHas the right hon. Gentleman read the Report of the Select Committee, which stresses the disquiet felt by our NATO allies at the cuts which he made last year, which give a different impression from the speeches that he has made on the subject? Therefore, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to make no further misleading speeches on the subject?
§ Mr. MasonI always make sure that I do not mislead the public. My job as Secretary of State for Defence is to tell the public the truth and the facts, and not to mislead our people that we can take on military tasks overseas of which we are no longer capable and were not, even when the Conservatives were in office.
I shall give my observations on the Report of the Defence and External Affairs Sub-Committee in due course.
§ Mr. Evelyn KingIs not the right hon. Gentleman's difficulty that if we are indefinitely to maintain 15,000 troops in 227 Ulster we must increase—not diminish—our Army, recruit troops locally in Ireland or default on an obligation in Ulster or elsewhere? Which of those three does the right hon. Gentleman prefer?
§ Mr. MasonNone, I hope, will be necessary. We have proved over the past years that we can maintain 13 units on regular station in Northern Ireland without upsetting our British Army of the Rhine training and activity programmes.