4.31 p.m.

The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. Ian Gilmour)

I beg to move That this House approves the statement on the Defence Estimates, 1973, contained in Command Paper No. 5231.

Mr. Speaker

I should like to inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and his right hon. Friends, to leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof: 'expresses its concern at the sharp inflationary increase in defence expenditure and, while paying tribute to the three Services and civilian personnel, particularly for their outstanding service in Northern Ireland, and maintaining that they should receive adequate remuneration, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take urgent action within the Alliance to bring our defence spending into line with that of our European allies, and further, to seek to ensure that total West European expenditure should reflect any improvement in the security situation following the European Security Conference'.

Mr. Gilmour

The Government laid down the objectives of its defence policy in its Defence White Paper in 1970. One of them was to give the Services a period of stability, something which the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) acknowledged was necessary. But we can fairly claim to have achieved it where he failed. We have avoided those frequent, sudden and damaging changes of policy which bedevilled the later 1960s, and we have given the Services the chance to recover from the disruption and upheavals of the past.

But defence policy goes in step with foreign policy; and if, as we hope, world conditions change, and in particular if Western and Eastern Europe move into a more normal and civilised relationship, then of course our defence policy win be suitably adapted. Nobody wants to spend more on defence than he needs to, and if we get a chance to reduce our expenditure we shall take it. But history suggests that we are more likely to spend too little on defence than too much.

There are, as the House knows, a number of moderately encouraging signs, and the Government profoundly hope that what President Nixon has called the era of negotiation will in Europe and elsewhere eventually substitute relaxation for tension and confidence for fear.

But we have a long way to go before any such development can be said to have taken place. Early in the Vietnam war Senator Aiken of Vermont suggested that the best way to end it was for America just to say "we have won" and act accordingly. That course had its attractions for some people; but the way of achieving détente is not just to say we have got it when in fact we have not.

The Government will do everything in their power to pursue détente, and ensure peace and security at the various conferences and negotiations that take place. But the three things are indivisible. There can be no question of sacrificing security merely in the hope of achieving détente.

As the House is aware, there are some discouraging precedents of people prophesying disarmament and being proved over-optimistic. Lloyd George once told this House that he saw "distinct signs of a reaction against armaments throughout the world". But he thought he saw those signs on 23rd July 1914, a few days before the First World War began; so his vision was a little premature.

I am not suggesting, of course, that we are now in a similar situation. But without being anywhere near so spectacularly wrong as Lloyd George was in 1914, we should still be taking an enormous and unjustified risk if we were now to assume that an era of peace and good feelings had already begun.

Certainly there is no sign whatever of a reaction against armaments in the Soviet Union. Quite the reverse. We estimate that the total level of Soviet military expenditure has steadily increased by 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. per annum in real terms over the last few years. During the last year Russia has reinforced her frontier with China, but not at the expense of her forces in Europe. She has recently made major increases in her artillery, both field artillery and air defence, and there have been reports that she is increasing the number of tanks in her divisions facing NATO. This is entirely in line with her policy over many years which has consistently been to increase the quantity and quality of her equipment.

In these circumstances, as the right hon. Member for Leeds East rightly said when he was in office, Piecemeal and unilateral western reductions without any compensating reductions on the other side would not improve European security or the prospects for a detente. As the House knows, the preparatory talks in Helsinki for the European Security Conference have been making progress. The military content of these talks is quite small, but their political significance will affect the climate of other East-West negotiations currently under way. Realistic steps towards détente have always been viewed with favour by Her Majesty's Government, and we hope the conference will make progress in lowering present barriers in Europe and increasing mutual confidence.

The military content in the mutual and balanced force reductions talks is of course very large. The largest difficulty here will be in negotiating an agreement that really is balanced. First, the Warsaw Pact have an overwhelming superiority in conventional forces, so that any man-for-man reduction would only exaggerate the existing imbalance. Secondly, the Warsaw Pact is a monolithic alliance firmly under Russian control and with a high degree of commonality in its equipment and tactical doctrine. It can therefore react very rapidly to any requirement for front line reinforcement. Finally, geography favours the Warsaw Pact; troop withdrawals by the United States across the Atlantic cannot be regarded as balanced by a similar withdrawal by the Russians behind their own borders. The negotiations will therefore be complex.

Meanwhile, it would obviously be pointless even to attempt to achieve mutual balanced reductions, if before doing so we for our part indulged in large unilateral reductions. I am sure that most of the House will agree with the right hon. Member for Leeds, East about that. NATO has kept the peace in Europe for 23 years, and our fundamental policy remains to foster the Alliance and to build up the European element in it.

I have so far concentrated on the major aim of our policy—the support of NATO and the defence of Western Europe. But we believe that this country still has an important part to play in other parts of the world. In addition to NATO, we are members of CENTO and SEATO; and we also contribute to the Five Power defence arrangements in Malaysia and Singapore. My right hon. and noble Friend recently returned from the Far East where he had discussions with the new Governments in Kuala Lumpur and Singapore—I am sorry; with the new Governments in Canberra and Wellington, and with the Governments in Kuala Lumpur and Singapore.

All the Governments concerned reaffirmed the defence arrangements, which we agreed upon two years ago, as a useful influence for stability in the area, and agreed that they should continue. As the House knows, the Australian Government have decided not to replace their infantry battalion and artillery battery in Singapore. They will, however, retain their naval and air contributions and logistic support elements for the ANZUK brigade.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)

At what level are the Australians to maintain a naval and air presence? Have they said in what numbers they will remain?

Mr. Gilmour

I do not think that they have given exact figures, but basically they will retain it.

Mr. Dalyell

It is only a token force.

Mr. Gilmour

Certainly not. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman has this prejudice against this force, which all the Governments in the area regard as extremely useful.

Mr. John Morris (Aberavon)

Is that all that the hon. Gentleman will tell us about the future of the ANZUK arrangements in Singapore? Whether or not he knows that there are new Governments in Australia and New Zealand, as opposed to Singapore and Malaysia, will he confirm that the present arrangements are under the command of an Australian admiral? Is the same command structure to remain?

Mr. Gilmour

This is obviously a matter which will be discussed within the alliance. All that I have told the House is that the basic arrangements will continue. That seems a reasonable piece of information to give the right hon. Gentleman.

One of our aims on taking office was to help enhance the standing and the reputation of the Armed Forces. This we have done. But much the most important factor in enhancing their reputation has, of course, been the behaviour of the Army in Northern Ireland. The restraint, tact and courage shown by our soldiers have impressed the whole country. In a provocative and delicate situation, they have discharged their duties with an extraordinary combination of bravery, skill and forbearance. Their conduct and morale deserve the highest praise, and they rightly receive it. Perhaps the best example of their skill was provided by Operation Motorman, which was carried through with speed and complete efficiency.

There have been the familiar claims that the Army has been guilty of harsh repression. The wildest allegations of brutal behaviour continue to be put about, often by people who should have known much better. But perhaps the House will have noticed a note of rising desperation lately in that sort of propaganda—not surprisingly, as the complete impartiality and good faith of the Army have been plain to all but the most bigoted and twisted.

Since the beginning of the year, the Army has continued to make progress. In January and February the security forces seized from extremists in both parts of the community 196 firearms, over 14,000 rounds of ammunition and about one and a half tons of explosives. The number of people arrested and charged totalled 249.

Of course, the situation is very far from satisfactory, but through their courageous and diligent work the security forces have brought some welcome relief to the people of Northern Ireland. In undertaking a vital task it is tragic that casualties should have continued. So far this year, 14 Regulars and three members of the Ulster Defence Regiment have been killed by terrorist action.

The House has been concerned for some time about provisions for death or injuries attributable to service particularly in the Northern Ireland context. I hope that we shall be able to make a statement shortly about improved provisions which will apply to all regular servicemen who are in the forces on or after 31st March 1973. These arrangements cannot, however, apply retrospectively; so we have decided to introduce a special scheme of ex-gratia annual payments to supplement existing benefits for regular Service men who have been invalided out and for the families of those who have been killed as a result of terrorist activity in Northern Ireland between 1st August 1969 and the end of March this year.

This scheme will also apply to the Ulster Defence Regiment. My hon. Friends will expand on it later in the debate. I shall now merely quote two examples. A widow with two children will receive up to £500 a year more than she now receives as a war widow's pension; and a completely disabled man will receive up to £400 a year more than he at present gets as a disability pension.

Mr. Churchill (Stretford)

What my hon. Friend has just said will be greatly welcomed on both sides of the House, but will he give consideration to special remuneration for those very brave men who risk their lives in the bomb disposal squads but get nothing extra for what is basically wartime work?

Mr. Gilmour

I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend says about the bomb disposal men. Their courage is unrivalled. On the other hand, a great many other people in Northern Ireland are also doing jobs under near wartime conditions, so I cannot hold out any hope of our making the change for which my hon. Friend asks. But the matter will certainly be looked at.

The Royal Navy continues to play its part as the leading European Navy. Our Polaris submarines provide Europe's only contribution to NATO's strategic nuclear force. They also contribute vitally to national security by providing us with an independent strategic nuclear weapons system in situations where supreme national interests are at stake. We, therefore, keep a close running check on the whole complex of technological, intelligence, financial and political issues—none of which is static. I can assure the House that our nuclear force confronts a potential aggressor with the certainty of unacceptable retaliation, and that we shall do whatever is necessary to ensure its continued effectiveness.

Our amphibious force of commando carriers and assault and logistic ships is a force unique among European powers to reinforce the flanks of NATO. The "Ark Royal" and her Phantom and Buccaneer aircraft will make a significant contribution to NATO's naval strength for some years to come.

Two years ago the right hon. Member for Leeds, East—to whom I gave notice—said this: The Government have not the slightest intention of continuing the 'Ark Royal' beyond the middle of 1973 They are continuing till then simply as an obeisance to some of their backbench supporters."—[OFFICAL REPORT, 19th November 1970; Vol. 806, c. 1557.] As the House will have suspected, the right hon. Gentleman was quite wrong then and he is still quite wrong now.

Naturally enough, there has been a certain amount of public interest in maritime V/STOL. The Harrier is the only military aircraft of its type in operational service. The British Government firmly intend to exploit the full potential of this advanced technology, and we foresee an important rôle for a V/STOL aircraft embarked on a through-deck cruiser.

The present Harrier is essentially a day ground-attack and land-based aircraft. For the maritime rôle we require a multi-rôle aircraft, capable of attack, reconnaissance and all-weather air defence operations. Project definition studies to establish the technical feasibility of making the current aircraft suitable for maritime employment and to assess the cost effectiveness of the best solution against the threat at the time are now well advanced. The problem is complex and some redesign work would inevitably be required. If the results of the project definition studies show that we should be able to produce a suitable maritime V/STOL aircraft which meets the requirement, our intention is to adopt it.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Bradford, West)

In the interim pending the potential development of V/STOL for use at sea in the late 1970s and early 1980s, will my hon. Friend consider embarking an aircraft of the Harrier type AV8A for employment in the close support rôle, perhaps from "Hermes", as this would give the crews valuable experience on the type?

Mr. Gilmour

We are always prepared to consider anything. But I rather doubt whether that particular suggestion is suitable. However, we shall certainly consider it.

Mr. Patrick Wall (Haltemprice)

My hon. Friend started his speech by talking about the talks on mutual and balanced force reductions. He will be aware that those do not include maritime power and that the greatest growth in the Soviet forces is in naval strength. How do we intend to protect our vital oil convoys from the Middle East round the Cape at the present level of strength of the Royal Navy, and what plans do the Government have for protecting these convoys which are vital in time of war or tension?

Mr. Gilmour

My hon. Friend is quite right in saying that the talks do not affect naval forces, but I should be deceiving him if I said that I had any new plans to announce today about how to protect our merchant shipping. But the House will have seen in the White Paper that our navy—which is only one of the NATO navies—is an impressive and competent force.

In the Royal Air Force, the strength of the Harrier force has reached its planned level, but the aircraft is being progressively re-equipped with more powerful marks of the Pegasus engine. Further Harriers are to be acquired in order to maintain the front line strength for a longer period into the 1980s.

The RAF is taking its first deliveries of the Anglo-French Jaguar aircraft in the strike-attack and reconnaissance rôles. The build-up of squadrons equipped with Anglo-French Puma helicopters is complete. On the weapons side deliveries will start during the coming year of the Anglo-French Martel air-to-surface missile.

Looking further ahead, we have additional Nimrods and additional Buccaneers on order. But the most challenging project is the multi rôle combat aircraft, which is being developed jointly by the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom. Work is proceeding satisfactorily, and a further milestone has just been reached. The detailed review of the performance, timing, and cost aspects of the project, which the three participating nations initiated in November of last year, has now been completed. The results are judged to be satisfactory, and I can announce that the three Governments have decided to continue with the joint development of the project. They have also authorised preparatory work for production. The next review of the programme is scheduled to begin at the end of this year.

Because of time, I have not been able to dwell upon the activities and achievements of the Services, but my hon. Friends will be able to go into more detail and soon we shall be having the single-Service debates.

Mr. John Morris

Since the hon. Gentleman has dealt with the MRCA and as we have not had a statement on this for a long time, can he tell us what production is envisaged?

Mr. Gilmour

No. We are not making any announcement about numbers at this time.

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)

As the hon. Gentleman seems to be indicating that he does not intend to continue for much longer, may I make one point? He has made, without question, the most uninformative speech to which this House has ever listened during a defence debate, certainly during my time in the House. This is a matter of major importance, and the kind of information he has put forward is either contained in the White Paper or is of a kind that could be considered on the Estimates debates next week. Is it not treating this House with absolute contempt and fulfilling the criticism many of us have made, that, because the Secretary of State is not in this House, we are denied any contribution on the Government's strategic and disarmament thinking, and on defence objectives generally? This is a travesty of a debate.

Mr. Gilmour

I can only assume that the hon. Gentleman decided to make his speech before going off to catch his train. I am only about half way through my speech, I regret to tell him. I will be looking at the Opposition amendment in some detail.

The White Paper mentions the return to industry of Sir Derek Rayner. We owe him much, not only for his report, which led to the creation of the Procurement Executive, but also for being brave enough to take on the job of being its first Chief Executive, which he did so well.

The Procurement Executive while having its own coherent structure, is nevertheless an integral part of the Ministry of Defence, and this is an important element in its successful development. Its creation has improved the dialogue between the Service authorities, who must take a final view of the requirement, and those responsible for producing the equipment, who must assess the financial consequences of various options, form an opinion about the risks involved in areas of high technology, and consider export potential. The last can be of great importance in keeping overall costs down. Increasingly we shall be trying to set new requirements in the general context of the equipment programme as a whole, and to maintain a balance between those areas in which performance must be the overriding criterion and those where well-tried systems can either be given a longer lease of life or replaced at minimum cost. In all this we are of course working very closely with our allies who face precisely the same dilemma.

Defence sales are a part of the Procurement Executive. As the House may know, Labour's "Programme for Britain" says: a future Labour Government must make a sustained attack on the mounting stockpile of weapons of destruction which not only threaten the human race but drain the wealth of rich and poor alike. The appointment of a 'Minister of Disarmament' by the last Labour Government was a useful declaration of intent. But it is clear that the hard core of the problem, the arms race, remains untouched. Of course it does. The Opposition mention their appointment of a Minister of Disarmament, which achieved nothing, but in their current Left-wing frenzy they entirely fail to mention their appointment of an arms salesman, which has achieved a great deal.

Defence sales last year were some £350 million, and this year they are expected to be £400 million. Our defence industries export about one-third of their production, and that represents 4 per cent. of the country's total exports. Does the Labour Party's proposed sustained attack on the mounting stockpile of weapons mean, as it appears to mean, that it would forbid the export of arms from this country? If it does mean that, very many people would lose their jobs, a number of companies would go bankrupt, and the balance of payments would be hit. If it does not mean that, Labour would be increasing the mounting stockpile of weapons instead of attacking it, and it is guilty of a shabby attempt to deceive its more guillible Left-wing supporters. We look forward to hearing which of these rather unpalatable alternatives right hon. Gentlemen will choose.

I turn now to the Opposition's amendment. We would all agree with the passages in it paying tribute to the three Services and civilian personnel and saying that they should be adequately paid. The amendment contains two crucial phrases. One is the phrase calling upon the Government to take urgent action within the alliance to bring our Defence spending into line with that of our European allies". As it stands, that appears to mean that we should bring our defence spending into line with the Germans and the French. If so, we shall, if anything, have to increase our expenditure, as the Germans spend more on defence than we do, and the French spend not much less. So, if the amendment means what it says, we need not quarrel. I am not sure whether the Opposition Front Bench do know what the amendment means.

Perhaps it does not mean that. In that case the Opposition ought to do something about their drafting. Two years ago their amendment was scarcely literate. This year it means apparently the opposite to what they intended to say. If the amendment were meant to refer to the proportion of gross national product spent on defence, which I think is the interpretation right hon. Gentlemen opposite may favour, the House will, I think, agree that it would be churlish not to congratulate the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) on his great success. This is the line he has been plugging hard for at least four years. Until now he has had no change out of his Front Bench but now, in defence as in everything else, the Labour Shadow Cabinet has given way to its Left wing.

Mr. Frank Allaun (Salford, East)

The Minister was kind enough to tell me that he would be making a reference to me. Exactly a year ago his predecessor told the House in reply to a Question that the proportion of GNP spent on defence was 5.7 per cent. while the average for the NATO countries was 4.2 per cent. If we came down to their level it would save £600 million a year. That is what not I but the Labour Party put forward in Labour's "Programme for Britain" to which the Minister referred. I am delighted that the Government are seeing sense.

Mr. Gilmour

I am sure that that is a helpful intervention for the Opposition Front Bench. I will be dealing with the hon. Gentleman's point in some detail. When he does make his speech I hope that he will tell us what is his real objective. He would surely not be content just to cut our expenditure to 4.2 per cent. of GNP. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East, when he was Defence Secretary, suggested that the hon. Gentleman and his Friends would like no defence expenditure at all.

In an article the hon. Gentleman wrote recently in the AUEW Journal he referred to a vital resolution passed by the Labour Party Conference". That resolution said that the Labour Party was opposed to any British defence policy which was based on the use or threatened use of nuclear weapons either by this country or its allies and demanded the removal of all nuclear bases in this country. Such a resolution was diametrically opposed to the policy of the Labour Government yet it was accepted by the National Executive of the Labour Party of which, I understand, the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Leeds, East are members. The hon. Member for Salford, East says that that decision must be respected by his parliamentary leaders—

Mr. Allaun

The Minister must recognise that other NATO allies, Italy and Germany, have no nuclear weapons. He must also recognise that these bases make us a sitting duck in the event of any nuclear war, even in the event of a missile accidentally landing on Moscow or Leningrad.

Mr. Gilmour

The chances of a missile accidentally landing on Moscow or Leningrad are very slim indeed. I agree that Italy and Germany do not have nuclear weapons. That seems to be a good argument for this country having them.

Anyway, the latest switch in policy by the Labour Party is a prime example of the point to which, as the House will have noticed, the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) referred last weekend—I gave him notice, too—when he said that the Labour leadership had been changing the Party's course at every shift of political wind and regardless of previous commitments".

Mr. Dalyell

Did I hear the Minister aright? Did he say that the fact that France and Germany did not have nuclear weapons was a good reason for our having them?

Mr. Gilmour

France has nuclear weapons. I said Italy and Germany. What I meant was that I think there is a strong case for there being an independent deterrent in Europe. I do not think it is a particularly new idea.

Mr. Brynmor John (Pontypridd)

In Europe?

Mr. Gilmour

We are in Europe. I was not making the point about a joint European deterrent if that is what the hon. Gentleman was worrying about. Britain is in Europe and I think that Wales is, too. No doubt in a fully integrated Europe the defence budget would be equally shared. I did not realise that the other side of the House were in favour of a fully integrated Europe. If they are not, they must explain why they have singled out defence to bear the brunt of their European zeal.

Instead of doing as the Opposition suggest, we should pay more attention to the defence expenditure of the Warsaw Pact countries than to that of our allies. It must have escaped the attention of the Labour Party that the MFBR talks are between the West and the Warsaw Pact countries, not between this country and the rest of NATO.

Mr. R. T. Paget (Northampton)

Surely this is the greatest hypocrisy. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that whether we add to or subtract from the forces we have tee-ed up on their frontier, they could not last three days if the enemy moved. We all know that.

Mr. Gilmour

That may be the hon. and learned Gentleman's view, but it is not everybody's view. The job and object of NATO under Governments of both parties is to deter an attack—and there has been no war in Europe for the last 23 years.

The proportion of GNP devoted to defence is not the only method of measuring defence effort. The best method, some may think, is to measure the actual expenditure and, as I have already said, Germany spends more than we do. The Opposition should remember that only last year their spokesman said that considerable caution should be used in making comparisons on the basis of GNP. As the House knows, other countries have conscription and, as their conscripts are paid less than our volunteers, this means that there is a greater drain on their resources than the percentage of GNP indicates.

Instead of concentrating on the proportion of GNP, we should be more concerned to see that our GNP increases faster. Part of the trouble was caused by the lamentable rate of growth achieved by the Labour Party. If they had achieved the same rate of growth as the last Conservative Government managed to achieve from 1958 to 1964, the defence programme would now be taking not 5¾ per cent. but 5¼ per cent. of gross national product.

Many Labour Members are seeking to persuade the House that our expenditure on defence should be reduced to the European NATO average percentage of GNP. I hope that they will explain what items in the programme would be deleted to achieve savings of £850 million.

The other key phrase in the Opposition's amendment has even less substance. There is no dispute that the Defence budget this year shows an increase in real terms. But leaving aside the absurdity of their complaining about inflation within days of producing a rampantly inflationary programme, let us examine their allegation of a sharp inflationary increase in defence expenditure…". The target for 1973–74 that we announced in the autumn of 1970 when converted to today's prices is £200 million below the 1973–74 Defence Estimate. Of this £200 million, £70 million is accounted for by the change in arrangements for making payments to suppliers of defence equipment announced in the 1972 White Paper; this is an accounting change and does not represent a new demand on national resources. The sum of £13 million covers several small items, such as the cost of the new Malta defence agreement. Of the remainder, £55 million is accounted for by the defence contribution to the Government's programme of measures to stimulate employment; these include the accelerated ship building programme and orders for Nimrod and other aircraft. The Opposition welcomed these measures at the time.

A further £62 million represents the extra cost of peace-keeping operations in Northern Ireland and of improved recruiting. Presumably the Opposition does not think we should have turned away these recruits, or that we should not have spent money in Northern Ireland.

If these measures are added to the target proposed by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East, revalued at today's price levels, we get a figure of just under £3,300 million as against our figure of £3,365 million. So despite all the posturing, the Opposition would not have been spending a significantly smaller proportion of GNP than we now propose.

If all the Opposition mean by their amendment is that they wish us to consult our allies and encourage them to bring their expenditure up to the same proportion of GNP as our own, let them say so. My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said some time ago that we should welcome such a development. But that would hardly satisfy the hon. Member for Salford, East. And if they are proposing a large unilateral cut in our own forces they must explain not only where they would make the cut; they must also explain why they believe that this is the right time to make it. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East and the Leader of the Opposition opposed such a cut in 1969, and their defence programme in 1970 contained no such cut in future years.

As recently as last year the Opposition Front Bench spokesman said: Now, when the prospects of a negotiated détente look better than they have for years, is not the right time for making one-sided concessions. No trade union would approach negotiations and give its cards away in advance in this way. Unilateral cuts are not the way to prepare for multilateral negotiations". That is every bit as true today. This is the nub of the defence argument. The situation has not changed; we have not changed. It is only right hon. Gentlemen opposite who have changed.

Naturally, defence expenditure cannot be insulated from the country's economy, and no figure of defence expenditure is sacrosanct. Some of my hon. Friends would like us to spend more, other people would like us to spend less. We think we have got it about right.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles (Winchester)

rose—

Mr. Gilmour

I am just about to conclude. In the face of the increased Soviet build-up, it is vitally important that the NATO effort should not be damaged. Whilst negotiations continue to try to achieve balanced reductions on both sides, it would be crazy to indulge in large unilateral reductions. For these reasons, I commend the Defence White Paper to the House.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. Fred Pearl (Workington)

I beg to move to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof: 'expresses its concern at the sharp inflationary increase in defence expenditure and, while paying tribute to the three Services and civilian personnel, particularly for their outstanding service in Northern Ireland, and maintaining that they should receive adequate remuneration, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take urgent action within the Alliance to bring our defence spending into line with that of our European allies, and further to seek to ensure that total West European expenditure should reflect any improvement in the security situation following the European Security Conference'. This is my baptism on the Opposition Front Bench in a defence debate. Having heard the Minister of State's account of events and also having examined the Conservative Government's Defence White Paper and the hon. Gentleman's attacks on the Labour Party, I must confess that I am rather disturbed. The Minister made a dreadful speech—and I mean it.

The Minister should have concentrated on what the Government are doing. He can make a debating speech if he so wishes but it is traditional in debates of this kind, as I have learned over a long period of time in the House, that the Government should give an account of what they are doing and of what they are going to do. The Minister of State spent too much time in trying to make cheap debating points, instead of giving the House information. If the hon. Gentleman had looked behind him during his speech, he would have seen that that was the view of many of his hon. Friends.

I appreciate that there has been some Press comment about my own position on these matters in respect of guns or butter, which no doubt is a reference to my special interest in agriculture. I have always taken the closest possible interest in defence matters, even before I became a Minister. Let me say at the outset that each one of us, on all sides of the House, must be concerned with the security and defence of our country. Moreover, in a democratic society such as ours it is essential that Parliament and politicians of all parties should have ultimate control of defence matters—in the sense that the military must be subordinate to the executive, and they in turn must have the confidence of Parliament because the Government are part of Parliament.

I recently read the interesting book written by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) entitled "The Politics of Defence". In that book he said: Effective control of the nation's defence force must be one of the highest priorities in any democracy. I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend, and in this debate we shall be discussing defence and strategy issues—although those issues were dealt with in only part of the Minister's speech. We shall subsequently be debating the Estimates on the various Services.

I wish to pay tribute to the Services and especially to our civilian defence personnel. I wish to make special reference to our troops in Northern Ireland who are performing a difficult task. I pay tribute to the courage and patience of our Service men in face of cowardly acts of terrorism. The Secretary of State for Defence said recently in another place that considerable progress had been made in the last year in improving troop accommodation. The Minister of State referred to other matters affecting Service men in Northern Ireland.

I understand that a new barracks and a permanent construction for 700 men has been completed in Aldergrove. There are to be seven camps giving accommodation for 1,700 men, and a further five temporary camps to provide for 1,250 men are nearly ready for occupation. A third ship, the "Rame Head", provided by the Royal Navy, will accommodate a further 500 men. Next year we shall be spending another £4 million on troop accommodation and this is money well spent.

I welcome the statement about the payments of compensation and pensions to widows of Service men and to the wives of those who have been severely injured. We shall study the plan in detail and no doubt will seek to probe it on other occasions.

We must recognise that our troops are still operating in difficult conditions and many are on their third or fourth tour of duty. We must have sympathy and understanding for them. The morale of the troops is remarkable in view of all their difficulties.

I also wish to say a word about civilian personnel who work in defence establishments. The Government propose to rationalise defence research establishments. I have received strong representations from the Institution of Professional Civil Servants and from the Engineering Section of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers. My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) has met groups of representatives on this matter, and those groups recognise the stark reality that staff will be discharged and in some cases with little prospect of re-employment. Morale in that section of employment is extremely low and I hope that the Government reply to this debate will seek to deal with the question of civilian personnel.

Let me give some examples. In the Services Electronic Research Laboratory at Baldock there will be 239 redundancies. There will be 421 redundancies at the Radar Research Establishment (Flying Division), and at the Signals Research and Development Establishment at Christchurch, in Hampshire, there will be a further 521 redundancies. At Baldock some 35 per cent. of male industrial workers are highly skilled with at least six years' training. About 80 per cent. of the women there have had three to five years' training and the rest are semiskilled. A very high proportion are older men and women who were promised security of employment, and who have worked at the establishment for many years. Some 64 per cent. of the men and 33 per cent. of the women industrial employees are over 50 and for most of them it will be impossible to obtain a new job. This could be a serious waste of skill and experience. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will make a statement in this debate to try to alleviate the great anxieties on this matter.

I come to the general points that have been made.

Mr. Frank Tomney (Hammersmith, North)

What my right hon. Friend is now saying conflicts with the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition because it will increase expenditure and not reduce it.

Mr. Peart

I do not accept that point. It would be wrong to waste skills. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) for his helpful contribution. But we desire more information about weapons systems and programmes on which there could be a major saving. The manpower saving in respect of these establishments would in the end amount to a waste of talent and a waste of resources. I am surprised by my hon. Friend, who is a member of a trade union—and his trade union is very much concerned with this and it has made representations to me. I am surprised at his stupid intervention.

Mr. Tomney rose—

Mr. Peart

A debate on the Estimates affords an opportunity to consider the purpose of British defence forces. In any consideration it is inevitable that issues of foreign policy should arise and naturally there is the problem of the state of the British economy. The Minister seems to think that we on the Labour side were responsible for all the difficulties. Obviously those difficulties affect the issue and there are also many intangibles, for example the morale and will of our people.

Indeed, as has been said on a previous occasion by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), defence spending and military forces are justified only in so far as they are necessary, first, to maintain the physical security of the British people against internal or external attack—and here we justify our 14,000 or more troops in Northern Ireland; secondly, to make our own specific contribution towards the maintenance of world peace through the United Nations—and an example of that is Cyprus; and thirdly, we still have a responsibility for the security of a few remaining colonies—and that includes Gibraltar and British Honduras. I was in British Honduras only last year and while there I spoke to some of our military personnel. That country will soon be independent but our troops still have a presence.

Inevitably we come back to Europe. The main function of our defence forces is to prevent a war in Europe. I cannot visualise a situation in which Britain would come under direct attack except in the context of a general European war. Such a war would inevitably involve the use of nuclear weapons at some stage. Here I give my own view. Even if the philosophy and practice of neutralism dominated our political thinking, we would inexorably and inevitably be sucked into a conflagration. If we look back on post-war development of defence we can see why the Labour Government and the late Lord Attlee and Ernest Bevin played a leading rôle in setting up NATO.

Successive Governments of all persuasions have accepted that peace can be preserved only by a proper British contribution to NATO, which must be accompanied by a contribution from other countries. Despite the inferences by the Minister of State, the Opposition believes in NATO. Moreover, I believe in military links of Britain and like-minded European nations with the United States. It is all very well talking about independence in the sphere of nuclear weapons, but we are not really independent. We rely on the United States which has helped to create stability and deter aggression. We must remember, and we forget it sometimes, that the United States also saved Europe with the Marshall Plan. I wish that some mention had been made today of the contribution that the United States has made in view of the difficulties it has faced over Vietnam and some of the problems affecting its service personnel.

The existence of NATO has established the probability that an armed invasion of any of its members would lead to the aggressor suffering damage out of all proportion to any possible gain. Even though Western Europe lies shoulder to shoulder with the Communist world, and with all the tensions that go with that, we must remember that we have enjoyed a degree of security against military attack and at the same time we have seen wars in other parts of the world, as in Asia in Vietnam and the Indian Continent, and in Africa and the Middle East. However, I warn the Government that we should not be complacent. I accept what the Secretary-General of NATO, Dr. Luns, said on 22nd March, 1972, when he addressed the Royal United Service Institute. He emphasised that we must not forget the importance of preparedness.

NATO therefore continues to exist, and I would argue that if it did not exist, if the alliance were dissolved, those countries close to Eastern Europe would tend to increase their armed forces rather than to reduce them. We have on record what the Swedish Social Democratic Prime Minister said in January last year when he wrote in the 1972 edition of the Socialist International Journal: We have demonstrated our intention to maintain our neutrality with strong defence forces. In relation to its population Sweden's expenditure on defence is among the highest in the world. We must remember that West Germany has a long frontier with the Communist countries. The end of NATO would probably stimulate expansion in Germany's armed forces and would hinder progress towards a détente in Europe. I want a détente in Europe and we should not be pessimistic. Ever since 1968 NATO has sought to pursue a policy of détente under various well-known labels. They have been advanced by both East and West. I refer to peaceful co-existence, renunciation of the use of force, the SALT talks, the Berlin negotiations, Ostpolitik and NATO's initiative in mutual and balance force reductions.

They have been accompanied by pragmatic developments such as increased talks, both bilateral and multilateral, with the countries of the Warsaw Pact. We have also seen an expansion of East-West trade and there has been a new approach to China by both the United States and Britain. These are positive developments and we should encourage them. Whilst I defend NATO, therefore, I do not believe that we can assume that everything in the garden is lovely.

Many questions must be asked and I want to put a few to the Minister today. What is the optimum size and strategy for NATO forces if they are to minimise the risk of war and at the same time further chances of agreement with the Communist countries in the Warsaw Pact? What should be our contribution to NATO? It is all very well to criticise what our amendments says about contributions which could be shared within the Alliance, as the Minister has done superficially. But that is a distinct point of view.

There has been unprecedented inflation, not only in Britain, which has affected the costs of equipment. Costs have increased partly because of greater sophistication of modern weapons systems. The Minister mentioned the MRCA, but he did not give details even though my hon. Friend pressed him over and over again for information. He was coy about it. Instead of hurling abuse at the Opposition he would have served the House better if he had provided more information. After all, we have a right to know about costs, the development of prototypes and what agreements have been made.

These are matters on which my hon. Friends are right to probe the Government. It may be that this is an expensive project. It may need to be curtailed or pruned, but we have no information. The information was not forthcoming from the Secretary of State in the other place and it has not been given in the debate today.

Mr. Wilkinson

The right hon. Gentleman has not mentioned the most rapidly expanding part of the defence budget, which is pay and allowances. The RAF has taken drastic steps to revise its manpower planning in order to provide more money for the sort of sophisticated equipment it will need in the future.

Mr. Peart

I was dealing with MRCA. We have had no information about it. I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman if he is satisfied with the Minister's explanation.

Expenditure is a matter of concern to all. It has been dealt with by hon. Members on both sides of the House on previous occasions. The Ninth Report from the Expenditure Committee includes a report of the Defence and External Affairs Sub-Committee from 25th January to 1st October 1972. On page 2, paragraph 6, it states: We feel that we should draw the attention of the House to our increasing concern over the mounting financial pressure which is developing for the Defence Budget in the late 1970s. These costs could be even further exacerbated if there were to be increased spending over this period on the strategic nuclear forces. The Members who compiled that report do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East and other hon. Members on this side of the House. I refer to the hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison), the chairman, the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Major-General Jack d'Avigdor-Goldsmid), a distinguished ex-soldier, and indeed, the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann). There is general concern about the matter, and it is not sufficient for the Minister so flippantly to dismiss our demand for more information.

The White Paper puts forward certain assumptions which we must examine in detail. It assumes, as before, that there is now an opportunity for negotiation in Europe. I come to my wider theme. In view of expanding Soviet military strength, such negotiations from the West must be based on a position of strength. I have argued this before. But where is that strength to come from? It does not come from indiscriminate spending, as could happen, unless there is a proper check on military programmes.

Without American support there is no possibility for Western Europe, as individual nations or as a whole, to maintain a defence position equal to that of the Soviet Union. A piecemeal programme of improvements, even for NATO, and increased spending on hardware will not solve the problem.

In Chapter 1, paragraph 9, the White Paper declares: Thus in parallel with the enlargement of the European Economic Community, a number of European countries will be developing and extending their practical co-operation in defence. That process should be facilitated by the opportunities that will arise in the Community for the removal of fiscal, legal and technical barriers to trade and to the free operation of enterprises throughout the Community. What does that paragraph mean? Have they considered Europe in view of what M. Debre has said? Many of my hon. Friends heard M. Debré, the French Minister of Defence, speak at Western European Union. He is on record as saying: If defence is to be credible it must remain national in character. How can the Minister square his thinking about Europe with that of the French Minister of Defence? M. Debré is a good friend of this country. He is an able man and a fine politician. Nevertheless, he believes that defence must remain national in character.

Entry into the European Economic Community and our attitude raises questions of closer European defence co-operation—in particular, that of Anglo-French nuclear sharing which has been one of the issues in the shadows of recent negotiations. Again we do not know the details. Whatever the arguments—many hon. Members raised this matter during the period of the Prime Minister's talks with M. Pompidou over our terms of entry into the Common Market—I suspect that both leaders are attracted to the long-term possibilities.

We are all acquainted with the Prime Minister's view in his Godkin Lectures which he delivered at Harvard University in March 1967. He expressed the view that we should have a nuclear force based on existing British and French forces which could be held in trusteeship for Europe and as a whole. It may be right to have this policy, but we have had no information about it. It may be wrong. Therefore, we should have more information.

Even in 1970, in a foreword in his introduction to a book published by the Oxford University Press, the Prime Minister reiterated his viewpoint: In my Godkin Lectures I was led by this train of thought to propose that the British and French nuclear forces should be pooled to form a joint deterrent which would be held in trust for Europe. Is that the Government's thinking? Are we to have a reply on this matter'?

Sir Geoffrey de Freitas (Kettering)

Last year some of us posed this question and none has received the slightest answer. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend could supplement it and tell us whether the idea of Anglo-French pooling has been discussed with the Germans?

Mr. Peart

It is not for me to answer that question. My right hon. Friend has rightly pressed the Minister to provide the House with an answer to this question. Hon. Members on both sides would like to know the Government's policy on this matter.

We have a special relationship with the United States under the 1946 Macmahon Act which prevents us sharing our knowledge with any other State. Therefore, any decision on this matter would affect our relations with the United States.

We all know that the late General de Gaulle attempted to make France a great nuclear power, that France refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and, indeed, has not signed it to this day. France has always been hostile to and resentful of America's nuclear supremacy. We must consider these facts.

The adoption of Anglo-French nuclear sharing would mean major changes in the balance of power in Europe and on the larger international scene. I regard this as one of the important matters in the debate. Even the Observer and other papers have taken up this matter, and I asked the Minister about it during Defence Questions. On 20th February The Guardian, for example, states: M. Debré has confirmed that the decision of the British Government to buy its second generation nuclear weapons from the United States has made impossible a common British-French defence policy. Our attitude is important. What is the Government's policy? Even today, when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition pressed the Prime Minister, there was uncertainty about the Govern- ment's attitude to this matter. Do the Government condemn France for having tests? Have they made further representations? Do they support New Zealand and Australia? We would like to know. Today there was evasion. Many of my hon. Friends will recall the incident.

I come now to the question of what will succeed Polaris. The Minister mentioned Polaris. Again, why cannot we have a statement? Over the years there has been too much secrecy and misspending. I remind the House of the history of Blue Streak and Blue Water and the desire of many people to have an independent deterrent. We know what that has cost this country. Nothing has been effective. Therefore, we have a right to ask certain questions. After all, we rely on the United States umbrella, whether we like it or not.

Are we to continue with Polaris? Are we to buy Poseidon'? Are we to Euro-peanise our nuclear forces, or do we rely on our own activities? Or do we rely solely on the American umbrella? These are key issues, the issues that we ought to be discussing.

As the Observer said on 25th February: The Defence White Paper published last week is a frustrating and disappointing document. It is frustrating because of what it does not say: there is not a word on the central problem now facing Britain's defence planning, which is whether or not to acquire the American Posiedon missile and thereby move into a new generation of rocketry which relies upon missiles with several independently targeted warheads. It is disappointing because of what it does say. Its only piece of political meat is a stolid, anachronistic repetition of yesterday's cold war doctrine. Many correspondents believe that, in his recent talks in the United States, the Prime Minister has won assurances that there will be nuclear defence exchanges between this country and the United States. All that I am suggesting is that here, in a major defence debate, we should be debating these matters. Instead of trying to score small party points, the Minister should have been dealing with these main issues.

After all, Washington has been much more forthcoming than Whitehall. I have here The Times of 7th February containing a report from its Washington correspondent, Mr. Emery, with a whole lot of information about the procurement of missiles and the likely dollar cost to Britain of purchasing the Poseidon sub marine-launched missile as a replacement for the Polaris.

I also have here, something which one can get in the Library, the final report to the Congress of the Secretary of Defence, Melvin Laird, covering the period from January 1969 to January 1973. I will not weary the House with the details in this document, but this is available information of a much more detailed character than we have in our own Defence White Paper, or what is given by Ministers. The Government must come clean on this and must make up their minds soon.

After all, we are now entering a new phase. Although we must be realistic, I hope that we will all welcome the talks which are now in progress on European security. Here and there, there may be a setback. We have had the preliminary multilateral discussions on European security and co-operation which began in Helsinki in November. There have also been the SALT talks which began in November of last year. We have had the preliminary discussions on mutual and balanced force reductions, which are continuing.

Above all, we have seen the Ostpolitik success of the German Government and of Chancellor Willi Brandt. Important treaties have been ratified among the Federal Republic, the Soviet Union and Poland which have loosened, as someone has said, the diplomatic log jam. As a result of ratification of those treaties, the Soviet Union agreed to the final signature of the four-power agreement on Berlin, and that came into force last year.

All this is positive progress. There have been agreements between the Federal Republic and the GDR, first on access of West Berliners to East Berlin and, second, on the regulation of traffic between the two States, which were in themselves dependent on the four-Power agreement on Berlin. These have now been completed and are in force. Now the two countries seek to move towards negotiations—final negotiations one day they hope—of a basic treaty which will mean recognition by both sides. This is a tremendous step forward and we must praise our friends in Germany.

I was glad to see that Major-General Sixsmith, writing in the Army Quarterly of July last year on the military situation in Europe, paid a tremendous tribute to Germany: Nothing that has happened since the earliest days of NATO has so altered the situation in Europe as the treaties now being ratified as a result of Herr Brandt's eastern policy. Although these treaties have done little more than recognise the legitimacy of the German Democratic Republic and subject to peaceful negotiation the existing frontier between Germany and Poland, they have removed a dangerous uncertainty from east-west relations. I want this process to go on.

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Cannock)

Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that this euphoria is, in the opinion of some people, perhaps a little premature?

Mr. Peart

I could not accept that. But this is the viewpoint of a man of the calibre of Major-General Sixsmith and I believe that it is shared by many people. It is right to be realistic, but also to recognise that we must move forward; a negative attitude such as that which I detected in the Foreign Secretary's speech in our last foreign affairs debate is wrong.

Our policy should be to achieve a détente. I believe we can get it. I am not saying that we should unilaterally disarm or that we should overnight assume that everything will be rosy. Of course not. There will be hard negotiations, but at least a start has been made, and I should have thought that every hon. Member would have welcomed that.

These are the important issues. I accept that there are those who disagree with defence. I read a moving speech by Lord Soper in another place. There are hon. Members in my own party who sincerely believe that unilateralism and pacifism in the best sense are the right policies. I understand this, although I take a different view myself.

I should like to quote Professor Michael Howard, that distinguished writer on military affairs, writing in January's Foreign Affairs in an article entitled "The Relevance of Traditional Strategy": It is a sombre thought that, at a time when so large a proportion of the human race remains near starvation level, about six per cent. of the world's resources, or something under 200 billion dollars, is still being devoted to military expenditure, with no serious likelihood of this situation fundamentally changing during the remainder of this century. Social scientists will continue to seek basic causes. … Any sovereign state—that is, any community which wishes to maintain a capacity for independent political action—may have to use or indicate its capacity and readiness to use force—functional and purposive violence—to protect itself against coercion by other states. That is the reality. Such is the conventional wisdom which will continue to rule mankind until we develop a viable alternative, or until there develops so strong a global sense of community that coercion, the use of force to impose one's will on others, becomes literally unthinkable. At present, unfortunately, such coercion is by no means unthinkable even within the most stable of communities and the most powerful of sovereign states. I believe in that viewpoint. At the same time, I believe that we should try to achieve peace between the major power groupings. Within those groupings we in NATO, and we, the British people, in our own way, will make a distinctive contribution. But it must be rational and sensible and we must be aware also of the social needs of our people.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart (Beckenham)

I am glad that the right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) made a speech which was considerably more robust than the Oppositions amendment. I was not clear whether the right hon. Gentleman was in favour of the amendment. I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman was rather cross when my hon. Friend the Minister of State referred to the Opposition's amendment.

The division which exists within the Labour Party has been revealed in the course of the first two speeches. We heard the robust intervention from the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney), who seemed to be in favour of rather greater expenditure.

Mr. Tomney

My intervention was intended to be helpful. Any hon. Member who has known me for the last 20 years in this House, and who has heard the speeches which I have made on defence and foreign policy, must have realised that I was offering my right hon. Friend the Member for Workington a way out. I wanted him to think quickly whilst on his feet. We cannot and must not reduce expenditure in specialised divisions. My right hon. Friend missed the point completely.

Mr. Peart

The House will realise that I made precisely that point—namely, that there could be savings in other areas.

Mr. Goodhart

Perhaps I might intervene in the strife which appears to exist on the Opposition benches. There was no intervention by the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) on behalf of the unilateralists and those who believe in a policy of full frontal nudity when considering conventional defence.

There are some divisions within the Conservative Party. There are those who believe that the Government have done their defence sums correctly. There are also those who believe that the Government should be spending rather more on defence than they have spent in the past.

If we consider the last five years, it is apparent that the proportion of the gross national product spent in this country on defence has declined and that the proportion of Government expenditure devoted to defence has declined. It is known that we are reducing our real expenditure on defence at a faster rate than our allies on the Continent of Europe.

I shall give two examples of the way in which defence expenditure has declined as a proportion of Government expenditure. In 1970–71 we were spending some £18 million a year more on the salaries of those in the Navy and Royal Marines—that includes their allowances—than we were on the salaries of those in the Inland Revenue and the Customs and Excise. The Government have an honourable record on tax reduction. However, for the first time the combined salaries of the Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue staffs is now larger than the pay of the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines.

Before the General Election of 1966 the then Prime Minister made great play of the fact that for the first time in our history expenditure on education was greater than expenditure on defence. Of course, there is a certain amount of argument about some educational statistics. The White Paper on Government expenditure indicates that expenditure on education now is £500 million greater than the spending on defence. In 1976–77 we shall spend £1,000 million more on education than on defence. The Government have not run wild with expenditure.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson (Montgomery)

The hon. Gentleman's argument is extremely tortuous. The amount which we spend on education and defence depends on our needs. The real issue is what are our needs.

Mr. Goodhart

I am trying to deal with criticisms which were made from the Opposition benches about the Government overspending on defence. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) that our expenditure must be related to our needs.

Since the Government's White Paper was produced, and since the Estimates were produced, the need for defence expenditure has increased. During the last few weeks we have witnessed turmoil in the foreign exchange markets. We have seen the value of the German mark increase. We have seen the value of the dollar plummet and various other currencies fluctuating sharply. That must have had a damaging effect on the defence posture of the Western Alliance. It will cost us more money.

We shall spend some £209 million in Germany this year on BAOR. Clearly the increased value of the mark will increase that expenditure. As I understand it, our current offset agreements will not cover that increase in direct costs. There will also be substantial increases in indirect costs. We know that there are strong pressures in the United States to bring back the American forces. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman paid tribute to the way in which the United States has contributed in the past to the defence of Europe. However, there are pressures to bring the boys back home. The fall in the value of the dollar and the increased value of the mark will substantially increase the pressures to bring the American forces back home.

Will the European countries step in and fill the breach? If so, there will be increased expenditure. If not, the doctrine of flexible response, on which hon. Members on the Labour benches have set so much store, will go out of the window. Changes in the exchange rate will affect our collaborative projects, particularly the multi-role combat aircraft. Obviously there cannot be a dramatic change in value between the pound and the mark without that affecting seriously the financial negotiations for the project. It is a project which is vital for the future of the German air force and our Royal Air Force.

The future of European defence depends on collaborative projects. We know that the pressure of the increased cost of manpower depends heavily on the defence budgets of a great many studies. A study has just been done in Germany which reveals that if present trends continue, Germany will be able to spend only 8 per cent. of its defence budget on weapon procurement. In this country we have done rather better than the Germans in balancing the cost of manpower and the cost of weapon procurement but the trend exists here as well as in Germany and in all the other countries of the alliance.

This means that in future we are going to be increasingly forced into collaborative ventures, not because these are cheaper—on the contrary, they are usually more expensive and more complicated—but because they are much more difficult to cancel once they have been started. This is what will save them, because if one has a venture which can be cut with only domestic upheaval, or a project which, if cancelled, would mean a major diplomatic row within the alliance, the tendency will be to cut the domestic project rather than the multinational one.

Mr. Tomney

A few years ago we had a fantastic aircraft, the TSR 2, which was shut out of the European market, chiefly by the American manufacturers. We have the Chieftain tank, which is superior to any other tank, and we cannot sell that either, for the same reason.

Mr. Goodhart

I am not sure whether the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) would think that a reference to the TSR 2 in a defence debate was altogether helpful, but I do take the hon. Member's point.

I welcome the changes which the Government have made in defence procurement and I pay tribute to the work of the Minister of State, but I regret the reorganisation which will mean that there will be less direct Ministerial involvement in defence procurement matters. I also regret that the Controllerate of Guided Weapons and Electronics seems about to disappear as well. Closer Ministerial watch is needed on procurement at this time rather than a cutting down.

I also want to mention the splendid way in which the Army has been tackling the problem of terrorism in Northern Ireland. This is a type of conflict in which I have had some experience, having served in the Army for 18 months in Palestine at a time when it was heavily engaged in anti-terrorist activities. I know how difficult it is for the Army to operate and how spectacular its successes have been in recent months.

It is the responsibility of Ministers to see that the Army is assigned to the right rôle in Northern Ireland, and Ministers must also ensure that it does not exhaust itself in that rôle. In the first seven months of 1972, I made some substantial criticisms of the restrictions that were placed on the Army's conduct of affairs in Northern Ireland, but since then Operation Motorman has re-established the Army's presence in all parts of Belfast and Londonderry and so our security effort there has been made a great deal more effective.

However, I am still concerned about the strain on the troops. I hope that the publication of the White Paper will relieve some of the tension and reduce some of the violence. But our best defence is to make it plain to our enemies that we can outlast them. At present, we are putting too much strain on the troops. Many senior officers and junior ranks to whom I have spoken in recent months agree that a 12-month break between emergency four-month tours is reasonable. But at the moment far too many units are being sent back to Northern Ireland on emergency tours after a break of only eight months or even less. These frequent tours have a particularly bad effect on re-engagement, especially as a high proportion of those involved are young married men.

The changes needed to reduce this strain on the Army would not be very great but first an effort must be made to build up local forces and ultimately it must be recognised that the main responsibility for security in Northern Ireland must be borne by the inhabitants themselves. This means that more men are needed in both the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Ulster Constabulary. It may also mean closely looking at the rôle of the RUC, because the findings of the Hunt Committee, made some years ago, are now long out of date. There is talk of a permanent element in the UDR. I think that this could be helpful.

I note, meanwhile, that there are certain units in the Army drawn from Northern Ireland that are not sent to Northern Ireland. I can understand that when violence broke out it was thought right that these regiments should not serve there. It is now time to consider phasing them back into a Northern Ireland rôle because if they, with their military traditions, cannot make a real contribution to internal security in Northern Ireland, a regular element of the Ulster Defence Regiment would not be able to do so.

There must be a more flexible look at the entire call-up system of the T & AVR. It is wrong that hundreds of T & AVR recruits in Northern Ireland should be unable to take part in the internal security situation without going over and leaving their comrades and joining the Ulster Defence Regiment.

I join with the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) who, in an intervention in my hon. Friend's speech, paid tribute to the magnificent work of the bomb disposal squads in Ulster. These squads should receive some special allowance for their arduous and dangerous work. I have made this suggestion in the past and, alas, many members of these squads have since been killed or injured. They have now had to extend their work to this side of the Irish Sea—to London. But at least the bombs in London have reminded us that terrorism is not an abstract subject, something that takes place in the middle of Germany. Some of our enemies are a great deal closer to hand than that.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget (Northampton)

May I begin with a very small point from SSAFA concerning the provision of British television by piping it to our forces in Germany, particularly in view of the Irish situation and men being constantly moved out of Germany with the result that there is great loneliness there. It would give them contact with things that are happening in this country. I believe that it would cost under £1 million, which in terms of modern Estimates is "peanuts", so I hope something can be done

I would like to turn straight away to Ireland. I do not regard Ireland with the level of euphoria which seemed to infect the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart). I do not believe that the Army is succeeding. I judge by the fact that there are more murders and more explosions, and that to me is not a badge of success. But I do not blame the Army for this. I blame its political masters who impose upon it conditions which are unfair to any army.

An army which is asked to go and tight a guerrilla war is entitled to the protection given to an occupying force by the laws and customs of war. Those laws and customs were worked out by the nations over a period of 200 years and were given expression in the various Hague conventions. They gave occupying troops certain powers, and it was humane that occupying troops should have those powers, because the cruelty of guerrilla war and civilian resistance was so much greater. Those powers included powers of interrogation by methods quite different from those of civilian police—powers of reprisal and powers of collective punishment. I do not believe it is possible for the Army to succeed in Ireland or for any army to succeed when faced with a guerrilla situation. Our Army is expected to deal with a war situation by methods appropriate to a civilian police force in peacetime. I just do not believe that it can be done.

Speaking last year I said: At Question Time today we were told that in future interrogation will be based on the practices of the civil police. Cannot the Government realise that this is a slightly uncivil situation? When the police are looking for information, that is a leisurely procedure ending in a prosecution for a crime within a well-ordered community. In the present situation our troops are looking for information with the object of saving life. This information must be obtained quickly, because if it is not, the guns and explosives will be used to kill people. When the Government, coddling their liberal consciences' sit back and say 'We will use only those methods used by the civil police 'they should realise how lethal liberalism is and that the blood of those people who die because the information is not obtained