HC Deb 19 December 1966 vol 738 cc988-90
19. Mr. Blaker

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the talks between Her Majesty's Government and the West German and United States Governments about the requirement for British and United States forces on the continent of Europe and the offsetting of the foreign Exchange costs of such forces.

Mr. George Brown

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made on 12th of December.—[Col. 44; Vol. 738.]

Mr. Blaker

When assessing how much of the foreign exchange costs of B.A.O.R. is being offset, is it the intention of the Government to take into account the foreign exchange which comes to this country as a result of the presence of American forces here?

Mr. Brown

No, Sir. I believe these two things to be quite separate. As I have told the Americans, and so have my right hon. Friends, we have a deficit all over the world arising out of the share of the burden—in some ways one might say a disproportionate share of the burden—of defending world peace that we bear. Therefore, I think that anything else that happens we are entitled to set against that. The question of the offsetting of the foreign exchange costs of our troops in Germany falls to be dealt with by itself.

Mr. Blenkinsop

Is my right hon. Friend aware that very many of us on these benches regard the offsetting agreement as utterly unacceptable as this is against the real determination that we have considered, as have others in the Government, would follow from securing an immediate reduction in these costs?

Mr. Brown

In that case, I can only think that my hon. Friend has not really looked at what has been achieved here. If one looks at the time scale in which the savings would come by any unilateral withdrawal of troops, it would not be as advantageous to us as the present agreement. Secondly, if it is, as I believe it is, my hon. Friend's desire to maintain the cohesion of a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and to maintain our influence in that and on the Continent, I am sure he would agree that it would be far better to do it by agreement than to do it unnecessarily unilaterally.

Lord Balniel

Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that on 9th August the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that if there was not an offsetting of the total costs of British troops, they would be withdrawn? While we wish the right hon. Gentleman well in the negotiations, may I ask whether he would not agree that a unilateral withdrawal of British troops, especially following the withdrawal of France from N.A.T.O., would considerably increase tension in Central Europe?

Mr. Brown

Whether that is true or not, it has to be understood, and I hope that it is—I explained it again last week to all our allies—that we cannot be expected to go on paying foreign exchange to meet a burden which is by no means wholly ours and is of great value to others. I should like to do this, of course, by agreement, and I hope that we can, but it must be very clear that what we have said has been that the offsetting for our foreign costs must be met. When the new German Government came into being a very short time ago, that, of course, made it inevitable that there was a certain slip in the time scale. I am hoping that the arrangement to which the Question refers has helped us over that.

Mr. Frank Allaun

Why have the Government broken undertakings given to Parliament on three occasions since 3rd May about British troop withdrawals, and, indeed, the promise that negotiations would be completed by this August? Is it because Washington regards the arrangements as a considerable diplomatic success for America?

Mr. Brown

My hon. Friend has got it completely wrong. We have never given that assurance to Parliament on any occasion. What we have said is that if we are to maintain this level of forces, then the foreign exchange costs must be offset. We have deferred the date by which that must be done in consideration of having received a series of orders from the Americans which, I repeat, more than meets—certainly they represent as much as—the savings that we could have got over the same period.

Back to