§ 14. Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Defence approximately how much would be saved in the year 1980–81 if the proportion of the gross national or domestic product devoted to the United Kingdom arms programme were reduced to the average proportion of the other European North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Governments.
§ Mr. AllaunIs that not an astounding figure? We are spending £3½ billion to £4½ billion a year more than the other Western European countries of NATO. Why should a poorer country spend a larger proportion of its wealth in that way than the richer countries?
§ Mr. NottThe manner of assessing defence expenditure varies. We find ourselves about midway in average expenditure per head. As I shall be explaining in my statement later, our contribution to NATO is extremely good. We should be proud of the fact that we are playing a major deterrent role on behalf of the Alliance.
§ Mr. ChurchillWill my right hon. Friend explain to the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) that it is irrelevant to compare Britain's defence expenditure with that of our allies, because they are not the threat? Is it not deeply disturbing that for the past 10 years the Soviet Union has been spending three times as large a proportion of its GNP on armaments as have NATO nations?
§ Mr. NottI entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The need for us is to ensure that our front-line capability is continually strengthened in order to face a massive threat from the Warsaw Pact. That is the reason for our present level of defence expenditure. I shall explain in my statement what we intend to do in 1981–82.
§ Mr. MarksAre not the Prime Minister and every other departmental Minister always talking about spending what we can afford? Will the right hon. Gentleman take a serious look at our defence expenditure? Present contributions to NATO are based on gross national products of the early 1950s. If we are to talk sense about economics, ought we not to examine that fact very seriously?
§ Mr. NottIn the last resort, we are talking about defending our liberties. That is what our defence policy is intended to do.
§ Mr. AmeryDoes my right hon. Friend recall that Mr. Attlee's Government spent 11 per cent. of GNP on defence and that of Mr. Neville Chamberlain, who was regarded by many as the arch appeaser, spent 6 per cent? We are not doing very well in comparison with either of those gentlemen.
§ Mr. NottI do not know that I should necessarily wish to compare myself with either of those gentleman, but I certainly take my right hon. Friend's point. Our present expenditure can be compared, as a percentage of GDP, with that of all our allies and can be compared favourably with the expenditure of the United States. The proportion of our GDP devoted to defence is rising, not falling.