§ 3.17 p.m.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy 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 will compare the total arms expenditure of NATO countries with those in the Warsaw Pact.
§ The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Viscount Trenchard)My Lords, provisional NATO figures show that alliance members spent a total of some 270 billion dollars on defence in 1981, an average of about 4.5 per cent. of their gross domestic product. The Warsaw Pact do not publish reliable figures, 753 but our most recent estimates indicate that in 1980 the Soviet Union spent some 81 billion to 86 billion roubles or 12 per cent. to 14 per cent. of GNP on defence.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords, while thanking the noble Viscount for that Answer, may I ask him this question: Is it not the case that, although the Soviet Union expenditure is a large proportion of a rather low gross national product, in total the expenditure in the West is substantially greater than that of the East? Not only that, but it is increasing at a faster rate. In these circumstances, is it not apparant that we are taking the lead in the arms race? Ought we not to do something about it?
§ Viscount TrenchardMy Lords, at the official rates of exchange, the sums are now very close together. Over the past 10 years the line of the Warsaw Pact in absolute terms has increased and the line of NATO has been more down than the likely increase which is now going to take place in the next year or two. The sums on official exchange rates are about level. The official exchange rate is not a very meaningful figure and part of the reasons for that are that there is a completely different structure and standard of living within the Soviet Union. The more impressive comparisons are the actual hardware which those amounts of money buy, which include figures such as, for the Warsaw Pact, 60,000 tanks, and for NATO, 21,900 tanks.
Lord MorrisMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend how one can possibly be the leader in the arms race when one is in actual fact very far behind?
§ Viscount TrenchardMy Lords, I agree with my noble friend. Across a whole range of important armaments, particularly potentially offensive armaments, the balance is heavily against NATO.
§ Lord KaldorMy Lords, I want to ask the noble Viscount this question: As the purchasing power of the rouble is in general taken to be somewhat less than the United States dollar, how do the figures that he has given us reconcile with the repeated statements from British, NATO and United States sources that the Warsaw Pact possesses a great superiority both in conventional and in nuclear armament?
§ Viscount TrenchardMy Lords, the reasons are the quite different costs within the Soviet Union of hardware and manpower. The very much cheaper cost to them in terms of manpower shows up in the greatest superiority in the areas of tanks and artillery pieces, for instance. But the superiorities show up right through, and that, of course, is because of the different standards of living in the West and in the Soviet Union. I have recently drawn attention to the fantastic differences in balance in chemicals and, of course, in intermediate-range missiles, which are well known.
Viscount St. DavidsMy Lords, would not the noble Viscount agree that one of the difficulties in making this particular comparison is the fact that a lot of 754 what we would call "defence estimates" is to be found in their "education estimates" and that indeed a lot of their other defence costs are to be found strewn all over their other estimates, including their overseas aid estimates and even down to their agricultural estimates, where some of them are found?
§ Viscount TrenchardMy Lords, the noble Viscount mentions other reasons why money comparisons are not in fact the really meaningful areas, and I entirely agree with that. Since he mentioned health and education, it is worth repeating that we in the West spend a very much bigger percentage on health and education in various ways than do the Warsaw Pact countries.
§ Lord ShinwellMy Lords, why does not the Minister disclose the fact that even if NATO increases its military expenditure by 3 per cent. it is unlikely to reach the level incurred by the Soviet Union?
§ Viscount TrenchardMy Lords, in terms of the hardware that it buys, I entirely agree with the noble Lord; but the actual billions of roubles at the official exchange rate are very close to the billions of dollars that the West spends. However, in the meaningful terms of the comparison of armaments, what the noble Lord said is quite right and a 3 per cent. expenditure does not begin to get us on a par.
§ Lord MolloyMy Lords, may I ask the noble Minister to comment on a question which many ordinary people are asking themselves regarding this debate? As we have heard from time to time, the Soviet Union has an enormous advantage in nuclear and non-nuclear weapons. Why then should they wait for us to catch up with them in three or four years' time before they launch any attack? Secondly, would not the noble Viscount agree that, when any proposition is made which might lead to a cessation of the construction of these horrendous weapons, irrespective of where they come from, it ought not to be summarily dismissed, but should be the subject of examination?
§ Viscount TrenchardMy Lords, the noble Lord takes the question right on to the area of disarmament, which has been discussed many times before. I do not think that in this House I have ever attributed the idea that anyone wants war and I think it is a much wider question, and one that should be debated on a separate occasion, as to whether or not the Soviet Union is playing a waiting game.
§ Earl CathcartMy Lords, would not the Minister agree that the answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, is that the reason why the Soviet Union is not taking any action is because of the Western deterrent?
§ Viscount TrenchardMy Lords, that is certainly true. We have adequate deterrence. If potential aggressors ever got to the stage of doubting our will or the adequacy of our deterrent power, then there would he a severe risk of their not waiting.
§ Lord KennetMy Lords, can the Minister say anything to the House about the Soviet attitude towards the United Nations study of the possibility of the reduction of military budgets on both sides?
§ Viscount TrenchardMy Lords, I think that is another question. The Question refers to the comparison of expenditure on armaments; and I believe we have done that.
§ Lord KaldorMy Lords, may I just ask the noble Viscount whether, regarding estimates of the annual production of armaments, both of the conventional and of the nuclear kind, by Warsaw Pact countries, he could not construct, with the help of some of the Government economists, an "armaments dollar" that would enable us to make a quantitative comparison of the total military expenditure of the Warsaw Pact and NATO countries?
§ Viscount TrenchardMy Lords, I do not think that the theoretical answer would have much bearing on the actual balance of armaments, which we already know.
§ Lord BrockwayMy Lords, in view of their effect on the balance of Warsaw Pact power and NATO forces, can the Government state what their response is to the proposals made by President Brezhnev three days ago for some unilateral reduction?
§ Viscount TrenchardMy Lords, that is another question.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords, is it not the case that, so far as most international estimates are concerned—for instance, that of the Stockholm Peace Research Institute—there is a general feeling at the present time that there is about an equality of expenditure in different ways? In view of the forthcoming World Disarmament Conference, will not the Government turn their attention to disarmament rather than to rearmament?
§ Viscount TrenchardMy Lords, the Government are giving all support to practical methods of disarmament. I have covered the question of comparability in real and practical terms perhaps over-thoroughly.