TNAG-0540-FCO40-635-Strength-of-garrison-in-Hong-Kong-1975 — Page 180

72

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE EXPENDITURE COMMITTEE

11 February, 1975.] Mr. A. P. HOCKADAY, C.B., C.M.G.,

[Continuea

Rear Admiral A. S. MORTON, Mr. T. CULLEN, Mr. D. M. EVANS, Mr. G. C. B. DODDS, Mr. A. R. M. JAFFRAY, Mr. J. D. BRYARS and Mr. T. C. G. JAMES, C.M.G.

went there would be still something of the order of 200,000 in the UK, is that right? Yes, without taking into account defence industries.

Chairman.

195. We have finished on manpower because we have started to border on section VII, which is industrial and employment implications. The Com- mittee have always been concerned that the Defence Ministry should not carry too much of what we call non-military on their Vote. Could you suggest any good reason why the defence budget should carry the extra cost incurred in support of employment policies? This is what I said earlier, that sometimes govern- ments feel it is wise from the employ- ment point of view to order certain military equipment. Personally I do not think this is wise. All this goes on the budget of the Ministry of Defence?—I know that the question of what should be on the defence budget and what should not is one that is frequently aired. There are quite a number of items which are on it which some would say should not be, equally there are a number of items of expenditure borne by other departments from which we derive some benefit. In the case in point, if decisions are taken by a government to purchase some military equipment, from a desire as much as anything else to stimulate or preserve employment in a particular industry, it is still the case that the ser- vice in question benefits by those equip- ments. You are perhaps thinking, Sir, of the decisions taken in 1971 or 1972 to purchase certain ships and aircraft. The Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force did benefit from those additions to their strength and I am afraid that it seems not unreasonable that we should have paid for them.

196. Turning now to the dockyards, you say you are going to see they get to the fullest possible extent naval work before you put work out to commercial dockyards. I was in Gibraltar at the Christmas recess and there the Admiral showed me how their dockyards, which I think are pretty efficient, are always up to time when they have to do a refit, or at least they have been lately, and finishing their ships, and they can cope

with a fair number. Would we be in our policy running down the number of ships. we might be sending to Gibraltar? (Mr. Jaffray.) Not so far as I know. The policy is to continue to send enough ship work to Gibraltar to keep that yard reasonably occupied.

197. Are we going to be able to keep the four dockyards here fully employed on naval craft? We do take in some from other governments, do we not?- We do a certain amount, but as paragraph 45 says, we propose to meet any under utilisation of the dockyards as a result of cuts in our own fleet in the first instance by bringing in work which at present is done by contract. This is Royal Fleet Auxiliary work which will be brought into the dockyards. Again, as the para- graph explains, the reduction in the size of the fleet to be refitted in the dock- yards will to some extent be offset in future years by the increasing complexity of the ships remaining in the fleet. Sub- marines are quoted as an example. Mr. Roper.

198. On the RAF refits, will this not require certain additional skills which are not at present in the dockyards?· No, Sir, the skills in the dockyards are fully appropriate to warships, and that kind of skills certainly embraces all work on the RFAs.

199. What are the priorities which will determine which vessels should be refitted in HM dockyards rather than going to other dockyards?—I would guess the more complex RFAs would probably be the ones to be brought into the dockyards.

Mr. Finsberg.

200. What unemployment will result in commercial yards as a result of work being switched from them to naval- yards? I have not got figures for this. Undoubtedly there will be some reduc- tion in commercial yards which would otherwise have carried out RFA refits.

-

201. Has the Department costed in any way the net effect of the additional unemployment caused by reductions, not merely in commercial yards but throughout? (Mr. Dodds.) Do you mean the total reduction in jobs in in- dustry as a result of the Defence Re- view?

Page 180Page 181