(DEFENCE AND EXTERNAL AFFAIRS SUB-COMMITTEE)
21 January, 1975.]
(b) domestic resources
[Continued.
7
It is a matter of scale again and of specificity. In the present context it is a shift in resource use of 1 per cent. of GNP over 10 years that is at issue. At the macro level the switching problem is clearly manageable. By the same token, of course, the benefits of the shift are relatively small and come slowly: on the announced figures they come late too-" butter tomorrow At the micro, or local, level the specialisation and localisation aspect assumes import- ance. Some change, like an airfield closure, may pose acute short-run adjust- ment problems especially in a relatively sparsely-populated area with limited alternative job opportunities. On the other hand there may be instances where fairly painless transition is possible (paragraph 16 above). Without details of what, where and how quickly closures and cancellations are to take place one can only state the possibilities.
The general point is clear, however. In his statement of 3rd December the Secretary of State claimed that his proposals "will make a significant contribution to estab- lishing our economic health". In the formula of the Scottish Courts, that is not proven ".
Involvement and Information
66
20. Indeed in the absence of detailed information worthwhile programme evaluation of any kind is difficult, if not impossible. It has to be of the speculative nature of this paper, emphasising inferences, generalities, possibilities. Government's monopoly of information, and occasionally curious ways of handling it, make effective Parliamentary involvement in policy discussion difficult, so that expressions of a desire to learn the views of Parliament do not always ring true. The Sub- Committee has persuaded the Ministry of Defence to provide much more informa- tion about its business in recent years. Because of this there is a better basis for the appraisal of policy exercises like the defence review both in the House and outside. But we still need more information in Defence White Papers and we need a Defence White Paper, each year. For looking at defence in relation to national priorities we also need our Public Expenditure White Papers, on time. Finally, on major policy matters, Governments could give a clear and comprehensive view of their intentions rather than a series of tantalising glimpses such as December's Hansards gave of the present review.
Aberdeen
15th January, 1975
NOTES AND REFERENCES
1. In the paper I mean by the proposals' the total picture of Government intentions yielded by the statement, the Debate and numerous Written Answers in December.
2. On which the Sub-Committee has commented, H.C. (1973–74) 169 and H.C. (1974) 308.
3. See the Chancellor's Budget Speech as reported in The Financial Times, 27th March 1974.
4. See Greenwood, D., Budgeting for Defence, London: RUSI, 1972, Ch. 5.
5. As reported in The Financial Times, 27th March 1974.
6. See the useful note in The Military Balance, 1974-75, London: IISS, 1974, pp. 102-3.
7. See White Paper 1973-74, The Security of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Develop- ment of the Federal Armed Forces, Bonn: Press and Information Office of the FRG, 1974 (English Edition), pp. 221-3.
8. See H.C. (1974) 308, Report, paras. 9-12.
9. The Secretary of State for Defence's words in the December Defence Debate.
10. Greenwood, D., op. cit., Ch. 6.
11. Greenwood, D., op. cit., p. 71.
12. National Institute Economic Review, No. 70, November 1974, Ch. II, Table 1.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.