§ 3.13 p.m.
§ Lord SHINWELLMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have been made aware of the proceedings at the meeting of Defence Ministers at Brussels. and in particular of the need for increased expenditure by NATO countries to match the military strength of the Warsaw Pact; and. if so, what is their reaction.
§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMYes, my Lords. Her Majesty's Government recognise that in the face of the continuing build-up of Warsaw Pact military strength, the North Atlantic Alliance is the best guarantee of our continued security. We intend to continue to make an effective military contribution to the collective security of the alliance commensurate with our economic situation.
§ Lord SHINWELLMy Lords, will my noble friend not agree that these frequent cuts, many of them substantial, in defence expenditure may encourage some of our allies to reduce their defence expenditure and thereby weaken NATO to an even greater extent compared with the Warsaw Pact? Is he aware that only last night, at a meeting of the Defence Study Group, the German representative stated that the German military expenditure annually was equivalent to £8,000 million? If the Germans can afford to spend probably 1016 £2,000 million more than the United Kingdom, surely this disparity ought to be recognised?
§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, the only way that the disparity can be remedied is that we put our economy in as sound a financial position as the German economy. We have in the meanwhile to cut our cloth according to our means.
§ Lord CARRINGTONMy Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that before unilateral cuts of the kind that were made yesterday are put into action, there is an obligation, according to NATO procedures, to consult NATO? Will he also confirm that no such consultation has taken place, despite the fact that both the Defence Secretary and the Foreign Secretary were at the NATO meetings last week?
§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, our NATO allies were informed. Consultation will take place as to how these comparatively minor cuts are implemented.
§ Lord CARRINGTONMy Lords, can the noble Lord explain what is the point of consultation after decisions have been taken?
§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, we are talking about £100 million in relation to £5,500 million. It is really a question of a series of minor adjustments. and these we will undertake in consultation with our allies.
§ Lord GLADWYNMy Lords, would the Government not agree that it is really shameful in effect to weaken the conventional defence of Western Europe, thereby widening the fatal nuclear threshold, by their refusal to add a few pennies to the price of a bottle of whisky or a packet of cigarettes?
Lord CHELWOODMy Lords, the noble Lord says that this is a minor cut of £100 million, but am I not right in saying that the figure is £300 million over the next two years? Is he aware that a great many people in all Parties regard these cuts as unjustified and irresponsible, and will he confirm that it was a slip of the tongue yesterday when the Leader of 1017 the House said that he assumed that our NATO allies had already been consulted about these vicious cuts?
§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMFirst, my Lords, the cuts are not vicious. The second point is that the treatment of the second tranche for 1978/79 will be different from the one proposed for the coming year. We have plenty of time to deal with 1978/79, and by then the economic situation may be different and the solutions may be different.
§ Lord HALEMy Lords, will the noble Lord consider—I speak for 10 million pacifists who have not yet been heard—preparing a discussion paper explaining why over 30 years we have been constantly assured that each increase of expenditure was absolutely essential to our defence, while we are now being constantly assured that each reduction in expenditure will not weaken our defence? Is there some optimum figure which could be considered rather carefully, if we are to continue to play the part of a great Power with the bailiffs in?
§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, the first point I want to make is that we have had 30 years of peace, so the policies cannot have been so bad. The second point is that we are not alone. We are facing a common enemy in a strong alliance, and all I can say is that according to the shifting balance of wealth within that alliance various responsibilities shift. We in the beginning played a major part, nowadays we are for the time being not able to do so; but the future may see a different picture.
Lord HOME of the HIRSELMy Lords, do the noble Lord and the Government not recognise that the more you diminish the conventional forces, the only option that you can leave open for allied response is the tactical nuclear weapon, and therefore we are now coming closer to the policy of trip wire from which we have tried to escape for the past ten years? Is this not extremely dangerous, and will the Government give a pledge that they will not diminish the conventional forces any further?
§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely correct in 1018 I his analysis. The cuts proposed will be concentrated in the support and administrative areas, and they will not involve any reduction in our front line contribution to the alliance.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTONMy Lords, is not the truth of this matter that the inferiority of NATO to the Warsaw Pact in conventional weapons is, and has been for many years, so great that minor additions or subtractions are quite irrelevant, and that that inferiority in conventional weapons has now become an inferiority in nuclear weapons as well?
§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, is my noble friend aware of the Russian analysis of the necessity for size in the extent of the superiority of conventional forces to enable them to attack? He will find that their own analysis is such that they are not likely to do what my noble friend suggests.
§ Lord CHALFONTMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that although, as he says, the cuts now proposed arc only £100 million this year and £200 million next year, that brings the total figure up to something like £1,000 million? Is he further aware that a recently-retired Chief of the Defence Staff said before the present cuts that the morale and efficiency of the Armed Forces were now at bedrock? Will he tell the House where they will be after these cuts?
§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, I can only repeat what I said earlier, and that is that nothing that we have done in the past year will involve any reduction in our frontline contribution to the alliance.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDEMy Lords, in view of the fact that in the debate yesterday on the mini-Budget the Lord Privy Seal did not answer the question which was put by my noble friend Lord Carrington as to whether NATO had in fact been consulted, will the noble Lord kindly give an undertaking that Parliament will always be told the full truth about what is going on? We always ought to know exactly what is the truth.
§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, I in fact answered that question earlier.
§ Lord SHINWELLMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that, although one is bound to take account of our financial and economic situation, which we deplore, nevertheless we entered into an obligation with NATO several years ago, and that we are now scuttling away from that obligation? In those circumstances, if defence is not adequate, we might as well admit that we have no defence at all.
§ Lord WYNNE-JONESMy Lords—
§ Several noble Lords: Answer! Answer!
§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, I do not accept that we are scuttling away.
§ Lord WYNNE-JONESMy Lords, can my noble friend say how much is at the present time being wasted by duplication of methods and resources and the failure to get agreement upon uniformity within NATO?
§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, much better progress has been made than my noble friend admits.
§ Lord GORE-BOOTHMy Lords, while I do not feel I have the weight to ask the kind of question that has been asked hitherto, may I ask whether the noble Lord would agree that phrases like "defence must make its contribution" are very dangerous, first, because we are talking about the defence of an alliance and not a national defence only; and, secondly, because when we talk about defence in terms such as we are using now we are talking about security and, therefore, to some extent, about national existence?
§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, this is a subject which we shall have an opportunity to discuss in great detail comparatively early in the coming year, and I would suggest that by that time the implications of the various reductions in defence expenditure that we have been discussing at this Question Time will be able to be put more clearly to your Lordships' House for mature consideration.