TNAG-0617-FCO40-765-Strength-and-cost-of-UK-armed-forces-stationed-in-Hong-Kong-1977 — Page 82

Oral Answers

109 hart: Does not the Secretar some embarrassment in sub ATO these plans for furthe in our defence budget nex has just signed a ministeria calling for a 3 per cent in European NATO defend d when the Prime Ministe hat we are on the threshole nted national prosperity? y: The hon. Gentleman i with his facts than usual question of having signed a or that the communique itment. It was an aim for t. increase starting in 1979. talking about the year 1978. of course, no shame what O councils when, as is well devote a bigger proportion ces to defence than does any r of NATO, apart from the

and Greece.

Evans: Will my right hon

ue to resist the demand from ive Party to increase defence when it is calling on the Gov. duce public expenditure as a he not agree that an increase penditure must mean a far ack on pensions, social ser. on and other things?

: All the relevant considera. in the minds of Ministers he in the usual way to con. blic expenditure survey for I take my hon. Friend's it a little nauseating to have It the need for drastic cuts enditure in general, not only ut in other areas, and oppo. reductions in a particular

ral Morgan-Giles: Will the State accept congratulations ss of the naval review last

ead and also on his ingenuity gether everything that would to the shop window on that oes he realise that that, as a o NATO's premier European es a clear need for expansion Or further cuts?

: I think that the hon. and eman is a little unfair to his Not everything was afloat at uite a number of ships were

1097

Oral Answers

5 JULY 1977

on operational patrol duties. Fewer than 60 per cent. were there. While we have fewer ships than we had at the com- parable review 24 years ago, I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman would agree that the capacity and fighting power of the ships at Spithead was greatly in excess of the Fleet in older times.

I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for what he says about the I shall convey them to the arrangements. Admiralty Board. I have had many com- ments of appreciation from hon. Members about the arrangements.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Have the Govern- ment accepted a 3 per cent. a year in- crease, or have they merely postponed it, and kicked it out of touch?

Do they realise that it will cost us £7-3 billion a year at constant prices in five years' time? If the present rate of inflation continues, it will cost £16·1 billion in five years. Will he tell his NATO colleagues that we just cannot continue any longer with this

nonsense?

Mr. Mulley: As I have explained on previous occasions, I have made no com- mitments to my NATO colleagues on the future trends of our defence expenditure, because these decisions must be taken in the light of what is thought necessary and the resources that are available. I cannot accept my hon. Friend's arith- metic. I shall do all in my power--and I hope that he will help me in making sure that the rate of inflation is nowhere near its present level in years ahead.

Sir Ian Gilmour: Since the right hon. Gentleman- is Secretary of State for Defence, is it not rather odd that he should so much welcome cuts in public expenditure being reflected to such an extent in cuts in defence expenditure? If he believes what the Prime Minister has said about our economy-and presum-

ably he is one of the few who does believe

it-he should say to the Prime Minister that, as we are doing so well, the fur.her damaging cuts in defence expenditure next year need not take place.

Mr. Mulley: It would be of interest to the House--but I do not propose to do it-if I could give a dress rehearsal of what I might say on these matters. As I have made clear to the House, I accept that, when public expenditure cuts have to be made, defence should bear a pro-

29 G 37

Oral Answers

1098

portion of those cuts-and our proportion is not massive, as has been suggested— along with other programmes. I would be very interested if the Opposition would give even an approximation of the figure that they think we should be spending.

Far East

6. Mr. Hooley asked the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had on defence problems in the Far East with the Defence Ministers of the Chinese People's Republic.

Mr. Mulley: None, Sir.

Mr. Hooley: Would it not be useful for the Secretary of State to have con- versations with the Defence Minister of China with a view to making sensible arrangements about the defence of Hong Kong? Is it not absurd to maintain a British military garrison there? It is pointless, because such a garrison could not possibly defend the territory and could only surrender if conflict broke out.

Mr. Mulley: I have no objections to having discussions with the Chinese Defence Minister. As my hon. Friend knows, we are very happy and willing to consider exchanges of various kinds. However, this is a matter more for the Foreign Secretary than for me. There is no great concern in any quarter to upset the existing stutus quo and the agreement with the Hong Kong Government.

Mr. Blaker: Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be useful for him to meet the Chinese Defence Min- ister and ascertain whether he agrees with the views of NATO experts that the doctrine, training and armaments of the Soviet forces have not a defensive pur- pose but an offensive one?

Mr. Mulley: If-it is extremely specu lative-I had discussions with the

Chinese, no doubt these matters might

arise.

Mr. Cronin: Will my right hon. Friend consider the proposal that he and the

Defence Ministers of NATO should have informal conversations with the Chinese Defence Minister, bearing in mind that both NATO and China have the same problem--the possibility of Soviet aggres- sion?

Mr. Mulley: That is a most interesting suggestion. I cannot speak for my NATO

*

Kum

Copii & Chief Sec AAPA Nay Kan Marken