The Defence Budget (Hansard, 12 May 1989)

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, the amount of the defence budget in 1989–90 is £20,143 million. The corresponding figure for 1978–79—the last year presided over by our predecessors—was approximately £7,500 million.

§ Lord Gainford
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister has given us some very impressive figures as regards money. Can he assure the House that the value for money will also increase?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, as my noble friend is well aware, as regards defence procurement we are now applying a much more commercial approach to our procurement process which I believe has rendered very considerable overall advantages to the armed forces. Since 1979 we have ordered 64 major vessels and 82 combat aircraft for the Navy, seven regiments of Challenger tanks for the Army and over 500 aircraft for the Royal Air Force.

§ Lord Mellish
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that it has been reported in the press that 864 there is a manpower problem associated with the armed forces. Can the Minister say something about that in view of the increase in resources?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, the matter was discussed by your Lordships the other day. There are one or two areas where the numbers are below the level that we regard as desirable. However, that is nothing like the problems that would exist if the new Labour Party defence policy were to come into play.

§ Lord Irving of Dartford
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, despite the figures he has given, there are areas where the amount spent has decreased in the last 10 years—for example, in the field of training? What worries defence experts is the fact that the Government have gone on piling commitment after commitment, both nuclear and others, on to the defence programme without any proper review, leaving the defence programme over-extended and under-funded. I ask the Minister what he intends to do about that?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, that is nothing like the under-funding that will take place if the noble Lord and his colleagues come to have responsibility for these matters.

Noble Lords
Answer the question!

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, as I understand the Labour Party defence policy now proposed, it provides for no increase in expenditure. I cannot imagine how that will meet the commitments about which the noble Lord is expressing such concern.

§ Lord Mayhew
My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that, despite the impressive figures that he has given for the increase in defence expenditure in monetary terms since 1979, that expenditure has declined in real terms since 1985?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, no, I shall confirm no such thing because it is not the case.

§ Lord Renton
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the resources which the armed forces now have and will have, will enable them to help local authorities in major peacetime disasters? The armed forces now have large quantities of transport, catering equipment, fire fighting and earth moving equipment and so on, all of which can be put to good use, and good training use, in helping local authorities. Can the Minister give us some idea of the freedom that the armed forces will have to give that help?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, the essential purpose of the armed forces is of course to confront the military threat that we face. But the role that my noble friend points to is an important one for the armed forces to be able to fulfil in appropriate circumstances. They are certainly very willing to do that when they have the capacity and capability to do so. That situation will certainly continue.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister has enjoyed himself in making remarks about the Labour Party defence policy. Will he please comment on reports in responsible newspapers of this country that are giving the entire nation concern; namely, that there are grave doubts whether the Trident missile will ever be made or maintained?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that I have no such doubts. The Trident programme is on course, very successfully, and, frankly, at slightly less cost than was originally anticipated. I can assure the noble Lord and the House that the first Trident submarine will put to sea on the day proposed long ago.

§ Lord Irving of Dartford
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his preoccupation (and that of his colleagues) with Labour Party policy this morning is an indication that they really fear that the Labour Party has a credible policy which will appeal to the electorate?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, anybody who really imagines that the newly proposed Labour Party defence policy is credible had better read it.

§ Lord Dean of Beswick
My Lords, can the Minister give any further information regarding the particular categories in which the armed services are short of manpower? Not very long ago the noble Lord answered a question of mine which showed that there had been three times the number of applications for posts in the armed forces compared with the number of people recruited. I believe that about three-quarters of a million people had applied but only a quarter of a million had been recruited. It seems that the matter is out of balance somewhere.

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, we certainly do not accept every applicant for enrolment in the armed forces. We must be careful to ensure that those that we do enrol are capable, after the necessary training, of fulfilling the duties that we shall ask them to carry out. Sometimes we have to take the view that that is not likely with all the applicants.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, in his initial reply the noble Lord failed to give the comparative figures in real terms. Would the Minister be good enough to do that? As regards the Labour Party programme, will the Minister pay attention to the result of the by-election in the Vale of Glamorgan?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, the real growth in the defence budget over the period to which I have referred was between one-fifth and one-sixth, which is a substantial figure indeed. More importantly, not only are we increasing the money in real terms as well as in cash terms, but we are getting better volume for the money we are spending because of the tauter procurement process.

§ Lord Mayhew
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that no one is challenging the rise in expenditure in real terms for the dates that he gave? I asked whether 866 it was not true that there had been a decline in defence expenditure in real terms since 1985. May we have the figure?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, that depends on which years one takes, and whether one includes 1989–90 or the year before the one to which the noble Lord referred. The real growth this year, for example, is between 1 per cent. and 2 per cent.

§ Lord Mayhew
My Lords, I specifically asked whether expenditure had not fallen in real terms since 1985. May we have that figure—if not now, will the noble Lord send it to me?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, the overall figure for the period between the financial year 1985–86 and the current financial year, 1980–90, shows a very small percentage growth; rather less, I agree, than for some of the earlier figures, but certainly a growth.

§ Lord Dormand of Easington
My Lords, do the extra resources provide any additional benefit for the cadet forces of the three branches of the armed services? Apart from being a first-class educational experience for young people, do they not provide a long-term beneficial result for the three forces under discussion today?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. The cadet forces have a considerable importance and the resources made available to them over the years to which I have referred have grown considerably. For the first part of my time in the Ministry of Defence I was responsible for cadet forces, and I fully appreciate their importance, which the noble Lord has underlined.