§ 17. Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he applies the same and what principles to the sale of arms to countries taking an active part in resisting Communist aggression in South Vietnam.
§ 18. Mr. Ridleyasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether the offset agreement with the United States of America which he negotiated in connection with the purchase of F111As contains a clause to the effect that arms purchased by the United States of America from the United Kingdom would not be used in Vietnam.
§ 56. Mr. Goodhartasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is applying the same rules for the sale of arms to all countries with troops fighting against Communist aggression in South Vietnam.
§ Mr. HealeyI would refer to the Answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to my hon. Friend, the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) on 12th July.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterHow does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile his own statement that he did not propose to supply arms for use, directly or indirectly, in Vietnam, with the Prime Minister's statement that there was no restriction on the supply of arms to Australia? If arms are properly supplied to the Australians, why are they refused to the allies fighting alongside them? Is not that making mischief with our American allies?
§ Mr. HealeyNo, Sir. I know that it disappoints many hon. Members opposite that this issue did not arise at all between my right hon Friend the Prime Minister and the President of the United States. We are supplying arms to the United States, as I have just pointed out, providing that their supply is consonant with what we regard as our responsibilities under the Geneva Agreement.
§ Mr. RidleyIf the Government's responsibilities under the Geneva Agreement prevented the Government from selling arms which could be used in Vietnam, can the right hon. Gentleman explain why members of his Department negotiated a sale of bombs and rockets with the American Government when it was clear 450 that these bombs were to be used in Vietnam?
§ Mr. HealeyMembers of my Department have never negotiated the sale of such weapons with the United States.
§ Mr. GoodhartIf it is wrong to sell weapons for use in South Vietnam, why did the right hon. Gentleman sign the S.E.A.T.O. communiqué, which welcomed the increase in military aid to South Vietnam?
§ Mr. HealeyBecause we regard our responsibilities as a co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference as imposing certain restrictions on the extent to which we can supply arms for use in the fighting in Vietnam. This is fully understood by our American allies, and I feel that if hon. Members had the interests of the alliance at heart, they would cease trying to make mischief on this issue.
§ Mr. PowellFurther to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), is the right hon. Gentleman denying that his Department was engaged in discussing with the United States authorities, on or about the 22nd June, the sale of munitions for, or suitable for, use in Vietnam? Was the Department unaware of his policy or was he unaware of what was going on? What is the explanation?
§ Mr. HealeyThe right hon. Gentleman will know that exploratory inquiries on a large number of issues are often received by Departments, but the final decision as to whether action should be taken on those inquiries must always rest with the Minister in the Department concerned.
§ Mr. DickensCan my right hon. Friend tell us why it is, then, consistent with our obligations under the Geneva Agreement to sell or supply arms to Australia which is a belligerent in South Vietnam?
§ Mr. HealeyThe hon. Gentleman should know that the Australian battalion in Vietnam is not equipped with British arms. It is equipped with American arms.
§ Mr. DickensHow does my right hon. Friend know that?
§ Mr. HealeyBecause we have military attachés in Saigon and we have a good deal of information about what is going, 451 on. We take the trouble to obtain this information.
§ Mr. PowellIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that my question did not relate to the receipt of inquiries, but to detailed discussions between his Department and the United States authorities? Presumably these would be a waste of time if there were no possibility of a sale? Does he deny that such discussions were taking place?
§ Mr. HealeyAs I say, when an inquiry is received, discussions take place about how to deal with it.
§ Mr. ShinwellIs my right hon. Friend aware that when the other side was in office, and when the Vietnam affair was in existence, it never offered to provide the United States with arms at any time?
§ Mr. HealeyI am not quite sure what my right hon. Friend means by that, but I will say that I am now very fully aware of the chagrin felt by hon. and right hon. Members opposite that Her Majesty's Government's policy on Vietnam has had no effect on the fulfilment of the offset agreement.
§ Mr. RidleyIn view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.