16
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE EXPENDITURE COMMITTEE
21 January, 1975.]
Mr. DAVID GREENWOOD.
that is a personal judgment about priority for defence as opposed to priority for other things. I am perhaps trying to maintain my academic purity here at the risk of some confusion. My own view is that, given the variety of claims on the public purse for a variety of worthwhile purposes and the strength of those claims, security and defence is indeed a strong one, below which in the present conditions it would be foolish to go much further than the Government at present proposes. But, maintaining the academic purity again, there is no formal defence limit which a nation must hold to regardless of all other circumstances. What it is right to spend on defence depends not only on what is the threat in defence, but also on what is the pressure of claims in other areas.
Mr. Boyden.
21. Could I ask about R and D expen- diture? Have you and your colleagues ever had a chance of following up the argument which the Labour Government used from 1964 to 1970 that by cutting R and D expenditure the scientists would go into civil activity and there would be a corresponding increase in civil econo- mic activity? Has there been any oppor- tunity to follow that up to see what the scientists do? I am not aware of any detailed study which relates specific ally to R and D expenditure as a whole or indeed particular R and D projects. However, this is an aspect of the more general question of the release of resources in the procurement area, and here I think one can note studies of the consequences of some of the aircraft procurement changes of 1965, when three major projects were cancelled on the argument that resources-including not only scientists but also engineers and others would thereby be available for other purposes. I think it is true to say that on that occasion the principal redundancies actually occurred among the airframe design staffs, because the projects cancelled were at the design stage and the substitutions that took place actually produced production work, and those design staffs went in quite large numbers to the United States, or in one case at least worked in the United King- dom doing designs for a United States aircraft manufacturer. The short answer to the question is that I do not
[Continued.
think there has been any systematic and comprehensive examination of the validity of this release of resources argu- ment and indeed it does depend on the individual circumstances of particular
cases.
Dr. Miller.
22. Reverting again to the trend of the discussion previously from Mr. Kershaw and Mr. Roper, although I must confess I have rather less exotic and somewhat more prosaic habits in my bath, what I would like to know is whether Mr. Greenwood is satisfied that, as far as he can see, the proposals he makes, the proposals which are based on the defence statement itself, will produce what I believe to be two essentials in any defence commitment we may have. One is an immediate defence return and the second is the possibility and ability of building up our defence should the need arise. Is he satisfied the proposals outlined will, as far as he can see, satisfy these two points?—It is a question on which you should ideally seek an answer from a military expert. However, my general view would be that the United Kingdom contribution to the N.A.T.O. deterrent in the sense of the immediate deterrent is maintained by this priority assigned to the tasks in central Europe. On the question of our capacity to rapidly expand that military power should circumstances demand it, I would question the validity in the last quarter of the 20th Century of needing that kind of defence posture, and I do not regard the absence from the proposals of any provision for additional effort in reserve forces, for example, as a major short- coming.
Chairman.
23. A great concern of this Committee has been the very slow progress, and the concern of Governments to the progress, of rationalisation of Western Europe. What you have been saying about econo- mic factors is that really each country's fear of unemployment or anything else is stopping this happening. Ought we to be doing much more in your opinion on these lines? Ought we to be con- tributing more to Western European or N.A.T.O. budgeting?—It would ob- viously be enormously helpful if the two principal goals that have been
!