HC Deb 11 March 1986 vol 93 cc793-4
6. Mr. James Lamond

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to conclude his long-term costing of the defence programme.

15. Mr. Allen McKay

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the long-term costings of the defence programme.

Mr. Younger

In the normal way I shall be considering the long-term costing over the next few months.

Mr. Lamond

As the Secretary of State is obviously having some trouble finding the money to finance even the conventional defence of this country, should he not have been exerting a little more pressure on the Prime Minister so that she would not give such a strident reply to the Soviet Union when it made a proposal which would have enabled us to abandon Trident and save £10,000 million by doing so?

Mr. Younger

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I thoroughly support my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's constructive response to Mr. Gorbachev. The long-term costing takes place every year.

Mr. McKay

Does the Secretary of State accept that a close analysis of the long-term costing would show that the cost of Trident is such that we shall finish up with the most expensive defence force in the whole of Europe, but probably the worst equipped and trained conventional forces?

Mr. Younger

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. As he probably knows, there is a question down later on the Order Paper about the latest costing of Trident. In general, it takes on average only 3 per cent. of the defence budget, and by no stretch of the imagination could it be said to be a major inroad into the conventional programme.

Mr. Latham

Will my right hon. Friend tell Lord Trefgarne to keep his hands off RAF North Luffenham in my constituency? If my noble Friend carries on talking about this, while today's question might be a Sidewinder near him, the next one will be effectively aimed.

Mr. Younger

I appreciate my hon. Friend's great concern about the RAF station in his constituency. My noble Friend will be looking at this matter closely.

Mr. Favell

If, as we all hope, the GEC system for Nimrod is perfected, will the Exchequer be rewarded for its investment if subsequently the system is sold to Lockheed?

Mr. Younger

That is another question, but I can say that if the Nimrod system, as it has been designed, is accepted, it will be against competition from other possible suppliers and will give the best possible value for money.

Mr. Cartwright

What effects will the coinciding of the Tornado programme with the first years of the Trident programme have on the planned re-equipment of the British Army of the Rhine, given the 7 per cent. real terms cuts in defence spending after the current year? Is it not a fact that any incoming Government after the next general election will have to undertake a major defence programme?

Mr. Younger

That is not the case. Every year there is a long-term costings review, and this year will be no exception. Defence expenditure in real terms is between 20 and 30 per cent. above what it was in 1979. Therefore, the position is better than it was when the Government came to power.

Mr. Bill Walker

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in peacetime there has never been a period during which long-term defence expenditure has not been looked at in depth, so that there is nothing new or novel in what is happening now?

Mr. Younger

My hon. Friend is right. There has to be a continuing look at all the plans for defence expenditure if proper value is to be got for money. That is the principal objective in my Department.

Mr. Denzil Davies

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the defence White Paper for the next financial year is not likely to appear much before the end of May? If so, does it not follow that the House will not be able to debate it until at least three months of the next financial year, to which the White Paper relates, have gone by?

Mr. Younger

No final decision has yet been taken as to the precise date of publication of the defence White Paper this year. However, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that it will not ve very different from the date on which it was published last year.