HC Deb 01 June 1965 vol 713 cc1504-6
Q1. Mr. Neil Marten

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on Great Britain's east of Suez rôle.

Q2. Mr. Sheldon

asked the Prime Minister what action is being taken to reduce the economic burden of commitments east of Suez.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson)

It is our policy to ensure that we have the necessary strength to be able to fulfil our commitments to our Commonwealth partners, our allies, and to undertake any measures which will be necessary for the purpose of the peace-keeping activities of the United Nations. It will be one of the principal objectives of the review of defence rôles and strengths to ensure that we are able to do this in the area east of Suez, as in other areas, at the minimum cost in terms of money and physical resources.

Mr. Marten

As we shall soon have to regard China as the fifth nuclear Power, would the right hon. Gentleman say whether there has been any progress on the proposition of, I think, last December, that India should be given a nuclear guarantee? Would he agree that if we did use our nuclear deterrent in this way it would save India the possibility of developing her own nuclear deterrent and thereby allow her to use her resources for needful purposes?

The Prime Minister

As to the first part of that supplementary question, if I am successful in catching your eye in the debate which is scheduled for later today, Mr. Speaker, I will have a word or two to say on that. There is not as yet a great deal of progress to report. On the second part, I think that we all agree that it would be disastrous if India and other countries felt impelled to develop their own nuclear resources. This is a question of providing international safeguards or guarantees so that India or, indeed, any other country in the area, does not feel so impelled.

Mr. Sheldon

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the directly attributable cost of our forces east of Suez is £320 million a year and that this excludes overheads, which, if added, would produce a figure hardly less than £500 million a year? Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the present economic situation this high level of expenditure is totally unacceptable? Will he prepare plans for a run-down of expenditure in this area?

The Prime Minister

I have said that one of the main purposes of the review of defence rôles is that we should be able to discharge our responsibilities with the minimum cost both in terms of money and physical resources. This review is not an easy task, but it is being related to more tolerable costs, in terms of money and physical resources, than would have been involved with the planned increase in defence expenditure in this and in other areas if we had not taken radical action.

Mr. William Yates

Is the Prime Minister aware that there are many people who are suspicious that the Labour Party's rôle east of Suez, particularly in supporting the actions in Vietnam, is closely connected with support which is given to the sterling market?

The Prime Minister

The hon. Gentleman is always elliptic, but I am not sure what he was trying to get at there. Perhaps he will allow me to point out to him that we have no troops in Vietnam.

Mr. Lubbock

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his reply to his hon. Friend seemed to indicate that we were going to maintain the same defence rôle east of Suez indefinitely, and that all that he could do was to try to ensure some reductions of expenditure by making economies? Is he really saying that the commitments to, our Commonwealth partners and allies east of Suez are immutable and fixed for all time? Would he not consider trying to persuade our partners in the Western Alliance to play a bigger part in that part of the world than they have played hitherto?

The Prime Minister

I think that the hon. Gentleman did not quite hear my first answer I referred to the review of defence rôles—not merely to defence costs, but to the defence rôles we have and the best way in which those rôles or their objectives can be discharged. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion is certainly one which should be pursued and which will be pursued. At the moment we have accumulated a total of rôles, a total of commitments, a total of in-built costs adding up to the figures my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) mentioned, which are far beyond the reasonable economic capacity of the country. This is the purpose of the review.