HC Deb 27 April 1982 vol 22 cc710-2
6. Mr. Jim Marshall

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the percentage and absolute increase in the defence budget over the years 1980–81 and 1981–82 due to (a) inflation and (b) increase in real expenditure.

Mr. Nott

It is too early to say yet what the final outturn on the defence budget for 1981–82 will be, but it is expected that spending will be very close to the cash provision published in Cmnd. 8494. On that basis, the total cash increase over the years 1980–81 and 1981–82 will be some £3,400 million. Of this, some £2,870 million is currently estimated to be due to inflation of 18 per cent. and 11½ per cent. respectively, and some £530 million provides for a real increase of about 4½ per cent. The 1982–83 cash provision provides for real growth of some 11 per cent. over 1978–79.

Mr. Marshall

On the assumption that we manage to evict the Argentines from the Falkland Islands, how much additional expenditure will be necessary in this year and succeeding years to maintain in that area a permanent naval presence of sufficient strength to deter any future aggression by the Argentines?

Mr. Nott

Clearly a large amount of money will be needed to maintain a substantial naval presence in the South Atlantic. We are seeking a negotiated settlement for the future security of the Falkland Islands without the necessity for a naval presence.

Mr. Viggers

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the increase in defence spending, particularly the increase in the proportion of spending that has been devoted to the Royal Navy, has enabled us to equip the task force with missiles and torpedoes and thereby make it more formidable than would have been possible three years ago?

Mr. Nott

My hon. Friend is right. The need is constantly to update and provide better weapons systems for the Royal Navy. My hon. Friend probably realises that we are devoting a slightly higher percentage of the total defence budget to the conventional naval programme than did the Labour Government. We have not transferred expenditure from the Navy to other areas.

Mr. Denzil Davies

As the Secretary of State does not appear to have learnt anything over the past few months and still believes that he has a good defence strategy, will he explain why his defence White Paper has been postponed and is being rewritten?

Mr. Nott

I thought there was a general wish, shared by both sides of the House, that we should not publish the defence White Paper until the crisis was over. I responded to that feeling by postponing publication of the White Paper. However, the White Paper is substantially complete. As soon as the House feels that it is appropriate, I will publish it.

Mr. Denzil Davies

Is the Secretary of State saying that the White Paper has merely been postponed? We were told earlier that there was an addendum or an erratum to it. If there is an addendum, what is it about?

Mr. Nott

I can explain that very simply. The defence White Paper is already substantially complete. It can be published at any time. There is nothing in it that in any way contradicts or embarrasses the Government vis-a-vis the Falklands crisis. I felt that it was more appropriate to hold back publication of the White Paper for a few weeks during the crisis.

When the crisis is over, we will consider whether any adjustments should be made within the policy already announced. That must be the sensible way to proceed.

Mr. Peyton

Does my right hon. Friend accept that some of us agree that there is nothing outlandish in being ready to learn from events?

Mr. Nott

I agree with my right hon. Friend. Of course, we will look at the current situation to see whether there are any necessary and desirable adjustments to be made to the general strategy that we have already outlined. That is nothing to be ashamed about.