Mr Ivor Richard: It will be interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman develop his argument. Will he face the point which I have put to at least two of his hon. Friends? Consistently we have spent more, expressed as a percentage of our GNP, on our defence than any other European nation. It could be argued that this expenditure was justified at the time when we had 60,000 troops in confrontation with Indonesia,...
Mr Ivor Richard: When the Labour Government came to power in 1964 defence expenditure expressed as a percentage of GNP was about 7·6 per cent. When we went out of office in 1970 it was about 5½ per cent. Those are the facts.
Mr Ivor Richard: The hon. Member is very skilful at producing a semantic difference between my hon. Friend and myself when in fact we were fully agreed that defence expenditure should be reduced.
Mr Ivor Richard: The hon. Member is right for the wrong reason.
Mr Ivor Richard: Switzerland?
Mr Ivor Richard: In many ways this has been a vintage debate, almost one for the connoisseur. Never, in the eight years that I have been in the House, have I heard so many right wing speeches on defence delivered in such a short time and with so little effect. I have been warned continually by hon. Members opposite not to be euphoric. The euphoria which has been engendered in this Chamber since eleven o'clock...
Mr Ivor Richard: If the object of re-examining the arguments is merely to dismiss them, the hon. Gentleman can take what comfort he wishes from that. I ought perhaps to deal with one other point, before turning to what I thought we were supposed to be discussing, and that is the problem of a European nuclear force. The hon. Member for Kensington, South said that he was surprised to hear my right hon. Friend...
Mr Ivor Richard: One knows the statistics, and one has looked at them in various capacities at various times.
Mr Ivor Richard: I am not sweeping them under the carpet, but regarding NATO remaining militarily weak and the Warsaw Pact remaining strong, that is just not wholly true. May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to read one piece of evidence? I have not brought it with me, because I did not think that I would have to argue on it. Perhaps I underestimated hon. Members on the Government side of the House. Would...
Mr Ivor Richard: I promise the hon. and gallant Gentleman "that I will read anything he wishes me to—within reason. If I am right, however,—as I think I am, that the military balance in Europe has broadly stabilised itself, the political problems now facing the continent are much more complicated. It is in the political field that we now require the flexibility and a delicacy of approach which was not...
Mr Ivor Richard: It was such a remarkable speech that I feel bound constantly to revert to it. However, I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman enough.
Mr Ivor Richard: I am saying that the state of European politics has changed in the last 10 years. Anybody viewing the matter with an unbiased mind would be bound to reach that conclusion. European politics are now different from what they were 10 years ago. In what we are talking about today is the way in which we should respond in military and political terms to the political situation in Europe. That is...
Mr Ivor Richard: The preliminary negotiations are to start on 31st January next year? Will they be Government to Government? In other words, will all the NATO Governments be invited and all the Warsaw Pact Governments? Or will they be bloc-to-bloc negotiations?
Mr Ivor Richard: Does "we" mean "us"?
Mr Ivor Richard: On behalf of the Opposition, I very much welcome what the hon. Gentleman has just said. I said nothing about it in my speech as I did not know the announcement would be made. We regard it as a major step forward in European relations.
Mr Ivor Richard: Mr. Ivor Richard (Barons Court) rose—
Mr Ivor Richard: It seemed appropriate, in view of the length of the debate on the orders so far that at this time the too Front Benches should say something. This is the longest debate on any renewal of sanctions order that we have had since 1965. At one stage the length of the debate was less than an hour and the longest debate until today was four hours and 23 minutes. Those who sat through most of the...
Mr Ivor Richard: Perhaps. My hon. Friend has much more immediate experience than I have of the right hon. Gentleman. On the face of it, for him to have anything to do with Rhodesia now would be like appointing one of the train robbers while he was serving his 30-year sentence for robbery to advise British Rail on the measures it should take to ensure the security of its high-value packages. The Foreign...
Mr Ivor Richard: Indeed. However, I think that it is the same country in each case which is making the same mistake in relation to two different countries. Thus, statistically, the hon. Gentleman's point is not as valid as it may seem. Nevertheless, it is clear that sanctions evasions have been and are taking place. Given that background, it must now be asked whether that is something which must be accepted...
Mr Ivor Richard: What the right hon. Gentleman is saying is extremely important. May I ask a question about the monitoring body? As I understand it, the proposal was that any increase over the agreed 4 per cent. would have to be accepted by a monitoring body on which the TUC, the CBI and the Government would be represented. Are we to take it that that monitoring body must be unanimous in its recommendation...
