967
Defence
13 MAY 1974
[MR. CONLAN.] presupposes that the troops in BAOR will remain substantially as they are at present. The other savings to which I have referred are insignificant and would not satisfy some of my hon. Friends.
I detect from the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State a hint that he is considering reducing expendi- ture on equipment. There may be oppor- tunity for substantial savings here. Is he thinking in terms of cutting the MRCA? One of the few matters on which I agree with Opposition Members is that if we cut the MRCA-one of the few remaining European ventures-great damage will be done to our Allies in Europe. If cuts are not to be made on the MRCA, will they be made on the through-deck cruiser programme? It is far too late to cut the one that is being built in Barrow; that will have to go through. If the cut is not made there, where else in the equipment programme will it be made?
I should perhaps declare an interest. I am deeply interested in this subject because I am sponsored by the AUEW, many of whose members are engaged on producing defence equipment. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) said that if we stopped making tanks and aeroplanes we should plan to transfer to making something else instead, but it does not work that way.
My hon. Friend also referred to his membership of the AUEW. During the war he and I worked in the same factory producing guns for the Army and the Royal Air Force. As the war drew to a close, word got round that that tremen- dous industrial complex would be closed because there was no further need for its products. My hon. Friend and I and others campaigned against the closure. We had meetings with Ministries, meet- ings in Manchester and demonstrations demanding alternative work for those who were employed at that huge industrial complex. After all the demonstrations and meetings, those vast factories closed and there was unemployment in the area. The factories remained closed for many years. In other words, my point is that the theory is nice but the practice is diffi- cult. One cannot simply change over- night from producing tanks to making motor cars or from manufacturing aircraft to producing washing machines. It is not
8 E 6
Defence
968
a theoretical matter but a question of brutal reality.
When my right hon. Friend the Secre- tary of State for Defence undertakes his massive review, he must take account of the social consequences of his decisions. I should like him to take a long time on his review because I want his decisions to be right. I do not want him to hurry his decisions. The decisions he takes may not necessarily be correct.
It has often been said that one man's defence cut is another man's dole queue. I do not want that to happen on Tyne- side. If I felt that any proposition made by my right hon. Friend was likely to affect employment on Tyneside—the male unemployment rate in the area is already over 6 per cent.--I should be knocking at his ministerial door the following morning. I want to see a high level of employment maintained. I also want to see defence expenditure reduced, and I see no conflict in these two considera- tions. I urge my right hon. Friend to be especially selective and to bear very much in mind the social consequences of his
decisions.
7.23 p.m.
Mr. Peter Blaker (Blackpool, South): I agree with the hon. Member for Gates- head, East (Mr. Conlan) that any cuts
made outside the NATO area will not come up to the figure which has been bandied about in recent months by Labour Members. The House listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman's comments when he stressed the implica- tions for employment of cuts in defence manufacture.
I also agreed with the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) who-dissenting from his hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun)—said that the object of negotiations with the Soviet Union was to have discussions while maintaining a balance of power. I welcome whole- heartedly the improvements, announced by the right hon. Gentleman the Secre- tary of State for Defence, for the forces and their families in Northern Ireland. Could he give the House his estimate of the increased cost? It is interesting to note that he has started his period of office with an increase in defence expen- diture and one which the whole House will welcome.