36
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE EXPENDITURE COMMITTEE
4 February, 1975.] Mr. A. P. HOCKADAY, C.B., C.M.G.,
Mr. T. CULLEN, Mr. D. M. EVANS, Mr. G. C. B. DODDS, and Rear Admiral A. S. MORTON.
the fact that they have very large con- script forces to whom, especially in the case of France, they pay very low salaries. We have tried to establish an economic price of the soldier in each country by comparing the wages paid to the conscripts with the average wage paid to persons of the same age group in the country concerned. The conclusion that we have reached is that broadly speaking, in order to measure the addi- tional burden on the economies of Germany and France resulting from the fact that they have taken conscripts out of their economies into their armed forces, you should add on something of the order of a quarter of 1 per cent. in the case of Germany and a half of 1 per cent. in the case of France. I should make clear that this is not the same calculation as saying what they would have to pay if they had all volunteer forces as that is something which it is very difficult for us sitting in Britain to try to estimate because it is very hard for us to judge what they would have to pay as a competitive wage to attract the people whom they want.
Mr. Finsberg.
37. The Committee has in the past had certain views upon including in the defence budget services like education for service families. Do the NATO Euro- pean average, Germany and France all work on the same basis or are we still on a non-like-for-like basis? If so, what sort of difference does it make?- -This represents expenditure on NATO defini- tions which are common definitions but they are not precisely like for like in that countries such as Germany and France, because they do not maintain large volun- teer armies stationed abroad, just do not incur this type of expenditure. they did incur it, it would be included in these figures.
If
38. Does our 5.8 per cent. include an element? -Yes.
39. What would that figure be if we excluded that sort of element?- -It is a bit over £200 million so that is about 0.3 per cent.
Dr. Miller.
40. Normally I would not worry if figures were 5 per cent. or 10 per cent.
[Continued.
higher, but these figures are very much higher in our case compared with France and Germany. While I accept that both France and Germany have conscript forces, which obviously cost less than ours, the first question that comes to mind is, have they not got very large numbers--much greater numbers than we have which would to some ex- tent offset this difference against us in their favour? But the more im- portant question is this: when you say that it is very difficult to arrive at some kind of assessment as to what it would cost them, can you not do this on the basis of assuming that they would have to pay their conscripts much the same salaries and wages as they pay their regular forces and make an assessment on that basis, because that is, in effect, what we do? -You could make a start at it on that basis but since, if you postulated all regular forces, they would have to recruit some- thing like twice as many people on a volunteer basis, they probably would have to pay rather more to attract 2x volun- teers than they
they do to attract volunteers.
X
41. There is such a big discrepancy between our proportion and the German and French that I think we have to have better answers than that. We have to arrive at some kind of basis of compari- son in making an assessment because of the fact that there is such a large dis- crepancy? Yes. The discrepancy of course, is due partly, and perhaps largely. to the fact that their gross national products are very considerably larger than ours. This is why the figures appear so much greater in terms of percentage of the gross national product. If they were converted into dollars or some other common currency (which is not a terribly satisfactory method of calculation be- cause it is subject to the effects of exchange rates and so on), you would find the three figures were not so very different and that ours was, in fact, the lowest.1
42. I am making a quick calculation I do not think the French gross national
1 Note by witness: This statement applies to the figures for 1973. In 1974, on a similar basis of calculation, the figure for the U.K. was above that for France but below that for the FRG.