HC Deb 14 July 1966 vol 731 cc1713-7
03. Mr. Marten

asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied that the post of Head of Defence Sales has been established in the most suitable Department; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister

Yes, Sir.

Mr. Marten

Would the Prime Minister perhaps consider making one Minister responsible for co-ordinating policy statements on arms deals? Does he recall saying, on the one hand, that we were not, either directly or indirectly, supplying arms to the Vietnam war, while, on the other hand, very shortly afterwards he said that there had never been any restriction or conditions applying to arms supplied to Australia? Could he help us to clear up the confusion that exists about this matter?

The Prime Minister

The position in regard to Australia is that we are traditionally one of her greatest suppliers of arms, although this would represent a very small proportion of the military deployment of arms in Vietnam, and it would be impracticable, on any arms which we send to Australia, to tag or label them,"Not to be used in Vietnam ".

Mr. Powell

How does the right hon. Gentleman ensure, in accordance with his statement of 17th May, that arms do not indirectly reach Vietnam from this sources?

The Prime Minister

We are not supplying them indirectly or directly to Vietnam. [Interruption.] If arms are required specifically for use in Vietnam, we do not supply them so far as Australia is concerned but, as I said, if we have a long and continuing contract for a particular type of arms, we could not put tags on them and say,"This particular part of this supply.…"— [Interruption.]

Mr. Heath

Would the right hon. Gentleman answer two questions? First, are the Government differentiating in this matter between the supply of arms to Australia and New Zealand and supplies to the United States? Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman really saying—and we should get to the bottom of this —that any request for arms is first examined to see whether they could be used in Vietnam and that, if the answer is"Yes ", they are not supplied, but that when the arms are supplied no condition is attached to them saying that they must not be used in Vietnam?

The Prime Minister

The right hon. Gentleman has not quite got it right, and I would commend him to study the Answer I gave on Tuesday last. The position is that any shipments that are made, for example, to the United States —which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned—are made unconditionally—not treated like some of those shipments that both the previous Government and the present Government operated with other countries. Any shipments that are made are unconditional. But in the matter of the deciding whether a particular shipment should or should not be made we naturally have regard to our position as Co-Chairman, but since our American partners themselves understand our position as Co-Chairman, I do not see that any difficulties are likely to arise.

Mr. Heath

Do I take it that that position does not apply to the Australians and that, if they wanted arms for Vietnam, they could have them?

The Prime Minister

Of course, they are not involved. Our position is[HoN. MEMBERS:"Answer."] The answer is as I have said. The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that this is a very difficult subject which cannot be dealt with—[Interruption.]—unless hon. Members opposite really want us to run away from our responsibilities as Co-Chairman. One therefore has to have some restrictions and, inevitably, these restrictions are difficult, and are sometimes apparently anomalous to hon. Members opposite. We do not make any condition about sales to Australia. As I have said, the United States understand our position. They are using arms in a different way from the Australian fighting. They understand very well—rInterruptionj If the hon. Gentleman cannot understand this, they really do not understand the facts of the situation in Vietnam. That is our position, and I see no difficulties arising from it.

Mr. Shinwell

Has my right hon. Friend received—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. We are losing valuable Question Time.

Mr. Shinwell

Has my right hon. Friend received any request from the Australian Government for arms that are intended to be used in Vietnam, and has he any information that arms supplied to Australia in recent years have been used in Vietnam?

The Prime Minister

I have discussed this matter very fully with the Australian Prime Minister. He fully understands the position—[Interruption.] This is really not a laughing matter—[Interruption.] The Australians have not asked for any arms specifically for use in Vietnam but, as I say, if we are supplying continuing orders of, shall we say, small arms ammunition, we obviously could not say with the next lot,"This particular batch should not be used in Vietnam."

Mr. Heath

But is the position that if the Australians ask for arms for Vietnam, they can have them, and that if the United States ask for arms for Vietnam, they cannot have them?

The Prime Minister

The right hon. Gentleman always wants to get a difficult situation—[Interruption.] The position is that the Australians do not ask for arms specifically for Vietnam. We shall continue to supply our traditional supplies of arms to Australia. If there were a situation, for example, in which the Australians were asking for bombs for bombing North Vietnam—and that is the whole issue that has given rise to all these questions—we would have to consider our position as Co-Chairman, and the decisions in the Commonwealth Prime Ministers Conference.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home

The right hon. Gentleman has twice now called in aid the position of the Co-Chairmanship. Of course, that is important, but have the Russians imposed any such restrictions from their side?

The Prime Minister

No, Sir. I have said many times at Question Time, and I said it in the recent debate, that the fact that the Russians have supplied arms is not a reason why we should. I think that it is right, and it is the view of the Government, that in this respect we should take a more austere and responsible view of our position as Co-Chairman than the Russians do, and, apparently, than the right hon. Gentleman did when he was concerned.

Mr. Molloy

Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that this distasteful and execrable dialogue, entered into with such glee by the Conservative Members opposite, will not do much to help the gaining of peace in Vietnam, and will not enhance the status of this House?