Expenditure

HC Deb 25 January 1977 vol 924 cc1154-6

6. Mr. Blaker

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with other NATO Defence Ministers about the latest defence cuts.

Mr. Mulley

As I explained to the House on 12th January, I have already informed NATO, through the Secretary General, of the defence budget reductions. We shall discuss the outcome of our study on 1977–78 as soon as it is ready. For 1978–79 there is time to consult NATO fully and I have undertaken to do so at an early and formative stage in our study of the measures required.

Mr. Blaker

Will the Secretary of State now kindly answer the question put to him a few moments ago by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew)? Is it not perfectly clear that every time we cut our conventional forces in Europe we make it more likely that at an early stage of a future conflict we shall have to resort to nuclear weapons?

Mr. Mulley

I have made it clear that we stand by the commitment that we have to maintain BAOR at its present strength unless and until it is possible to reduce it as a result of a success in the multilateral force reduction negotiations that are taking place, so we have no intention of reducing our conventional forces assigned to NATO on the central front.

Mr. Dalyell

When my right hon. Friend attends the Cabinet in order to discuss devolution on Thursday morning, will he suggest that in the referendum there could be a question such as "Though it is regarded as absolute operational nonsense by NATO, do you favour a tartan navy, a tartan army and a tartan air force?"?

Mr. Mulley

I have not yet seen the Cabinet agenda for Thursday, but I doubt very much whether the question of a tartan navy, army and air force will be among the items that we shall be discussing. However, I am aware of my hon. Friend's point of view. I think that it would be very unwise if devolution were to go so far as having separate defence forces for the component parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Mayhew

Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that his answer just now—that there is no intention to reduce our conventional contribution to NATO—means that there will be no further cuts in the logistical support for the Rhine Army, which has already been seriously deprived of its ability to do its existing job by reason of the cuts already made?

Mr. Mulley

I do not accept the suggestion that the Rhine Army is not in a proper state of readiness should it be called upon to perform its task. It is well recognised that we contribute in quantity and particularly in quality to the defence forces of NATO. Obviously, in every field of endeavour those concerned would like things more up to date, and more of this and that, but I think that we compare quite favourably with most NATO countries in the nature of our contribution.

Mr. Fernyhough

Wearying though my right hon. Friend may find the task, will he continue to try to educate Opposition Members to the simple proposition that no country can be militarily strong if it is economically and financially weak?

Mr. Mulley

I am sure that my right hon. Friend is right in saying that the economic strength and industrial regeneration that the Government seek to achieve will also play a very important part in our contribution to the Alliance.

Mr. Ian Gilmour

Is it not quite clear that the Secretary of State gave no proper notice to the NATO Defence Ministers meeting that he attended that cuts in defence expenditure were to be made? Will he admit that he assented to a communiqué that said that NATO forces should be maintained and not reduced, and further, did he not agree, as soon as he came home, to cutting defence, which he had agreed not to cut? How can he possibly justify that behaviour, not only to our Allies but to this House?

Mr. Mulley

I have explained to the right hon. Gentleman before that the discussion of these matters did not take place in the normal discussion of the Defence Planning Committee. In my recollection there has never been a com- muniqué issued by NATO after such a meeting, or any report of the Military Committee of NATO, that did not express dissatisfaction with the present level of forces and, quite properly, the need, on military grounds, for an increase. The right hon. Gentleman must have seen them year after year when he was in office.