1003
Defence
13 MAY 1974
[MR. YOUNGER.] the right hon. Gentleman's wish to with- draw permission for the Polaris base in this country. I hope it is not. It would be a disastrous decision if that were so. It cannot be part of the saving on our defence costs, because I understand that those costs are met by the United States. Therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman has to make a decision I pray that it will be the sensible one of welcoming the base where it is now. It cannot feature in the context of saving on our expenditure because it does not involve expenditure by us to any significant extent as far as I understand the matter.
Mr. Dalyell: What, in the hon. Gentle- man's view, is the point of having British forces in Hong Kong?
Mr. Younger: I know the hon. Gen- tleman does not think that our forces are there to defend the colony against the Chinese. They are not there for that purpose, and they could not be. Indeed, it would be an absurd proposition if they were there for that reason. Our forces are there to provide stability and to give a sense of confidence in the area. They are there to help in an internal security rôle. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that that idea is far-fetched, he has only to look at the newspapers of a year or two ago when there was a serious situation which would have been uncontainable without the pres- ence of those forces. I think that situation arose when the Labour Party was last in office. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman.
The Conservative Opposition have been constructive this evening. It has not been a question of trying to prevent the right hon. Gentleman from making economies in the defence programme. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Major-General d'Avigdor- Goldsmid) referred to the excellent recom- mendations that were brought out by the Select Committee report on saving money on the initial training of such people as tradesmen in the forces. It was recom- mended that this could be amalgamated within the three Services. That is an excellent idea, and I hope the Govern- ment will pursue that sort of aim which could save a considerable amount of
money.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hal- temprice (Mr. Wall) made some telling
8 E 24
Defence
1004
J
points about the benefits of standardisa- tion, which he felt should go through to the defence procurement programme. agree with my hon. Friend on that, and I hope that the Government will press ahead with all forms of encouragement to our NATO allies to standardise as much as possible. Experience so far on standardisation should lead us to press
on with it.
We have to remember that what we ought to address ourselves to in this business of whether to cut defence expenditure-whether the amount is one sum or another-is that it is fatal to cut indiscriminately. This point was made by the hon. Member for Hudders- field, East (Mr. Mallalieu) in a most telling speech in many ways. If cuts are made indiscriminately, either in total, or between individual Services or even indi- vidual projects, at the end of the day one is bound to get a nonsense situation. Any cut must be related not only to com- mitments but to the forward programme of procurement as a whole. It should not be made arbitrarily in the short term.
I was not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman was clear about what we mean by unilateral. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) pointed this out in his speech. We consider that a cut in commitment is made unilaterally, even if there has been consultation with them, if our allies do not agree to its being made. Unilateral means that the decision is taken by one side without the other side agreeing to it. Therefore, we shall not be glad to accept from the right hon. Gentleman a state- ment that he has made no unilateral cuts unless he can tell us that they have been agreed as reasonable and sensible by our allies.
an
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) made important point about the timing of this defence review. The right hon. Gentle- man has made a tremendous point- obviously for special reasons-about the scope, size and fundamental nature of the review. To say that the NATO Alliance, its individual members and their defence policies are in a state of disarray is, to use a soft word. To add to that the blood-curdling phrases used by the right hon. Gentleman about this being the most fundamental review ever undertaken in peacetime is most unfortunate. I hope