George Cunvin
One of the "measures" announced by Mr. Callaghan when he outlined the Government's plans to deal with the new situation created by devaluation was a £100 million cut in defence expenditure. This was the part of the devaluation proposals which appealed most to the Parliamentary Left even though it did not go as far as they would have liked. last Monday, Defence Secretary Healey shouldered the task of clarifying the Chancellor's statement of last week. It was almost a classic example of how issues can be befogged by a mass of figures. Many M.P.s must have been completely puzzled when Mr. Healey sat down, as to what the Defence Cuts really will amount to. But two things emerged very clearly. Firstly, there are to be no immediate cuts in defence expenditure. The proposals refer to the 1968/69 estimates. Secondly, though Mr. Callaghan gave the impression that the £100 million cut was one of the measures to relieve the pressure on sterling and an economy to help make devaluation more pal— atable, it now transpires that as a direct result of devaluation, which increases automatically the price of imports, the actual savings will be only £65 million. That is, of course, if we accept Mr. Healey's figures at their face value. To say the least of it, some of the defence cuts seem a little odd. There will, for instance, be a saving on not repairing the fire damage to the aircraft carrier "Victorious". Also, £10 million will be "saved" through the unexpected delays in the development of military equipment. MPs rightly wanted to know how this could be called a saving. The "Times" Defence Correspondent, last Saturday, also did some arithmetic on the defence savings, based on a series of written ansrs given by Mr. Healey last week. He arrives at the startingly different figure of £20 million as the maximum saving in defence expenditure -— a mere fleabite. As a result of devaluation, Britain will have to pay £145 million more in sterling for American aircraft already on order. Devaluation will also put about £20 million on the Polaris programme during the next two years. Running costs of all this purchased equipment will also increase because of the need to buy spares from the United States. Britain also has to pay for the use of Polaris missile facilities off Cape Kennedy. Mr. Healey indignantly repudiated a suggestion from Frank Allaun that the Polaris programme should be scrapped. No part of Britain's defence policy puts her so much in pawn to the Americans as does the Polaris programme. Surely, even Mr. Healey will not dispute that this dependence is the direct cause of the government's slavish support of U.S. imperialism in foreign affairs. The scrapping of Polaris wouldnot only save millions of precious sterling but will also prepare the ground for a socialist break-through in foreign policy. The "Times" correspondent points out that for a net reduction of £100 million in next year's defence budget, economies to the amount of £160 million should have been made. On top of that, many of the so-called savings are spurious. 26 million, according to Mr. Healey, would be saved next year by cancelling the order for American Chinook helicopters, and more in the following year. But last week Mr. Healey admitted that this saving may not be permanent and that it was not inconceivable that the order would be Made goode
Furthermore, as the "Times" points out, a large part of the £100 million
package is no saving in the absolute sense, since it is simply achieved
by keeping certain items out of next -year's budget, in the knowledge that
they will come back into later budgets.
This parliamentary double—talk should deceive no one. The Left must press
for meaningful cuts in defence expenditure and above all be on their guard
lest these spurious defence cuts are used as justification for "balancing"
inroads into the social services.