965
Defence
Defence
966
13 MAY 1974
the Government will implement Labour Party policies. One of those policies is to cut defence expenditure.
in The Guardian wrote is a long time coming.
I conclude by asking the Secretary of State to confirm that he will not interfere with the building programme for the Types 21, 22 and 42 vessels. Can he assure the House that the "Invincible " through-deck cruiser will be completed, that she will in due course be joined by her two projected sister ships and that this substantial investment will not be vitiated by failure to provide vertical take-off and landing aircraft, without which they will be almost ineffective?
Will the Secretary of State confirm the answer given to me by the Minister of State that the Exocet fitting programme still holds good? What plans does the Secretary of State have for the mainten- ance of
of amphibious strike capability within the Royal Navy? In particular, will the Secretary of State quash once and for all the objectionable rumour that the Government intend to phase out the Royal Marines? I should especially appreciate an assurance from the right hon. Gentle- man that he intends to preserve and develop the existing conventional warfare capability of the Royal Navy.
7.10 p.m.
Mr. Bernard Conlan (Gateshead, East): I am sure that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) will forgive my not following the theme of his interest- ing speech, although I cannot let it pass without comment. His theme appeared to be to ask why we are talking in terms of cuts in defence expenditure. We are doing so because the Government were elected on the basis and commitment of a cut in defence expenditure. That commit- ment was supported by the country.
Mr. Alan Clark: If the hon. Gentle- man is ready to argue that the percentage of the electorate who voted Socialist is the same as the percentage who are in favour of cutting defence expenditure, I am prepared to allow him to do so, because that means that 37 per cent. of the electorate are in favour of cutting defence expenditure, which is not a very substantial proportion.
Mr. Conlan: That is a strange argu- ment for a member of the Conservative Party to advance. The Labour Party has the largest share of seats in the House, it therefore forms the Government and
8 E 5
The hon. Gentleman made an interest- ing comparison when he asked why we should cut defence expenditure and not supplementary benefits. He was extremely courageous in saying that, because it sums up Tory Party philosophy--more guns, less butter.
Mr. Peter Blaker (Blackpool, South):
No.
Mr. Conlan: That was what he said why cut defence expenditure and not supplementary benefits? If that is Tory philosophy, I suggest that it should be included in the next Tory manifesto.
I have great sympathy with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He is committed to what he described as the most severe review carried out in peace time. The purpose of the review is to analyse all our military commitments. When that has been done he will come back to the House in the autumn with a White Paper and advise the House on how reductions in expenditure can be made.
I
We seem to have gone through this process before. My right hon. Friend's illustrious predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), had six arduous years as Secre- tary of State for Defence in the previous Labour Government. He was enjoined to do precisely what the Secretary of State is now being called upon to do, namely, reduce defence expenditure. recall that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East was not highly successful in cutting defence expenditure, although he made some marginal cuts. My right hon. Friend, who had his arm twisted many times between 1964 and 1970, has now become Chancellor of the Exchequer and will be twisting the arm of the new Secretary of State. It is a classic case of poacher turned gamekeeper.
I am not too concerned about reducing the outpost at Singapore, withdrawing troops from Hong Kong or reducing the forces in Cyprus, Malta and Gibraltar. If all those reductions were achieved they would not represent what some of my hon. Friends ask for. That is where my right hon. Friend's dilemma begins. He said that the linchpin of the Govern- ment's defence policy was NATO. That