§ 14. Mr. Channonasked the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations he had with NATO Allies before the publication of the recent Defence White Paper.
§ Mr. MulleyThe regular and wide-ranging consultations within NATO have naturally covered a good deal of the subject matter of the White Paper. However, the presentation of the annual Statement on the Defence Estimates to Parliament has never been the subject of formal consultation.
§ Mr. ChannonIn view of the fact that, according to the White Paper, the Soviet Union now allocates nearly 12 per cent. 1068 of its gross national product to military programmes and is continuing to increase that sum, is it not all the more important that we should co-ordinate our activities with our NATO allies, and is it not foolhardy to think of cutting our defence expenditure when the Warsaw Pact is increasing its defence expenditure?
§ Mr. MulleyThe hon. Gentleman is inviting me to give him the contents of the speech that I hope to deliver a little later today. However, I shall spare the House that now. Certainly we work in the closest co-ordination with our NATO allies, and although I have been censured by the Opposition Front Bench for so doing on the provision of AWACS we shall continue that co-ordination. For reasons that I shall explain, I believe that we are making a proper and full contribution to the Alliance.
§ Mr. BlakerIs the Secretary of State aware that Admiral of the Fleet Sir Peter Hill-Norton, Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, recently said that it was extraordinary how some of our political leaders view the military buildup of the Warsaw Pact as being only for defensive purposes, and added that Warsaw Pact forces are not the right shape for that purpose. Does he agree with that view?
§ Mr. MulleyI do not have in mind the remarks quoted by the hon. Gentleman but I have a clear recollection of a Press statement issued by the Admiral of the Fleet last week, in which he spoke of ill-informed armchair critics who criticised the fact that NATO is working all day and every day for 24 hours round the clock. I have a copy of the Press communiqué in which that statement is made. I am inclined to Sir Peter's view that NATO is wrongly knocked and alarm wrongly created by people who are not nearly as well-informed as is the Admiral of the Fleet.
§ Mr. FernyhoughWhat would be the effect on the pound and what would be the view of our foreign creditors if we were to indulge in another £2,000 million of defence expenditure—and what would be the effect on our already weak economy?
§ Mr. MulleyIt would be a matter of serious concern for our creditors if we 1069 were to announce an increase in any form of public expenditure totalling £2,000 million. Generally speaking, I do not find it worth while to seek to answer hypothetical questions.
§ Sir Ian GilmourDid not the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor undertake that all Government cuts in defence would be discussed with NATO beforehand? Why, in the latest round of cuts, was that undertaking broken?
§ Mr. MulleyThe undertaking has not been broken. I was asked whether the White Paper had been formally put to the Alliance. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that has never been the practice. I announced in the House on 12th January, and subsequently at Question Time, that we had sent to NATO details of the proposed cuts, which I have since announced to the House, and are in course of preparing our proposals for the cuts in 1978–79. There will be the fullest consultation with the Alliance in accordance with NATO procedures.