§ Q9. Mr. Mayhewasked the Prime Minister what representations he has received from the Prime Minister of Australia about the Government's foreign and defence policies in the Far East in the 1970s; and if he will make a statement.
§ Q10. Mr. Grimondasked the Prime Minister what undertakings have been given to the Australian Government about British defence contributions east of Suez; and if he will make a statement.
§ Q13. Mr. Blakerasked the Prime Minister what assurances have been given to the Government of Australia about the intention of Her Majesty's Government to continue to maintain a military presence in the Far East and Southern Asia.
§ The Prime MinisterCommunications between the Prime Minister of Australia and myself are confidential.
§ Mr. MayhewDoes the Prime Minister recall the public declaration of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence in Canberra in February explaining the defence decisions and stating that we intended to maintain all our commitments and to remain in the military sense a world Power, not only between 1970 and 1980, but also to some extent between 1980 and 1990? Does this public declaration, a copy of which is in the Library, represent British policy?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, I am aware of the statement of my right hon. Friend. It represents our position, but I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), who 1240 has suddenly started to show very great interest in these matters—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—our whole policy on defence was stated in the White Paper of 1965 as well as the White Paper of 1966—will have a chance in the next few days of hearing further about these matters and so, I hope, in due course will the House.
§ Mr. GrimondIs the Prime Minister aware that if that statement represents Government policy, as he has categorically assured us it does, it means that the Government are committed to a major role in the Far East for an indefinite period so long as the people there want us to remain? Will he make sure that this is not contradicted by statements made by leading Ministers in any other context, because it is clear that this Government announcement will cause grave disquiet among many people in this country?
§ The Prime MinisterI will certainly ensure that any announcements—and if I catch my right hon. Friend's eye, I may be making statements in the context referred to by the right hon. Gentleman—are not inconsistent with the policies which we have announced. What the right hon. Gentleman and many who have approached this problem have not seen, because it has been so much oversimplified with slogans about east of Suez, is that if we are to play a part in world peacekeeping for the United Nations, we must have a role there. The argument will be about the extent of our commitments in terms of bases and the number of troops and other services which we keep abroad. The important thing if we are to exercise a peacekeeping role is above all the ability to get there, and this means having some presence there.
§ Mr. BlakerIs it not possible that one reason for the anxiety shown by the Australian Government is that the British Government have changed their mind on so many aspects of foreign policy and defence in recent months that they may have given the impression to their friends of infirmity of purpose?
§ The Prime MinisterI do not think that that impression has been given to anybody apart from hon. Members opposite who have been trying to believe this for 1241 about twelve months. Our position not only in the Far East but also in the Middle East has been well understood by our friends in Australia and New Zealand throughout this period. We had the Defence Review and decisions were taken and were discussed with our Commonwealth partners and our allies and were fully understood by them.
§ Mr. PagetWill my right hon. Friend tell me how on earth we carry out a genuine world role in a distant ocean without a carrier force?
§ The Prime MinisterThis matter has been debated in the House of Commons for some three days. I should have thought that my hon. and learned Friend knew the answer to that. There will be an opportunity for going into these subjects a little more fully in the near future.
§ Mr. HeathIs it not clear that the present action of the Government in making one set of statements to Governments east of Suez and exactly contradictory sets of statements on foreign policy in party meetings upstairs is undermining the faith of the world in British foreign policy everywhere and, when allied to the breaches of faith over the surcharge, over Aden and now over E.L.D.O., means that there is no longer respect for the Government of this country?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman should be careful not to confuse Parliamentary Labour Party meetings with the 1922 Committee. Whether the leaks from the 1922 Committee are as inaccurate as those from our party meetings I am not in a position to say, but there has been no question of saying different things to our allies in public or private from what has been said at party meetings or anywhere else.
§ Mr. HeathIs the Prime Minister repudiating the verbatim account of the party meeting by his hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt) in the Daily Mirror?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, Sir.
§ Mr. William HamiltonCan my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the implementation of this policy east of Suez will in no way jeopardise the targets set out in the National Plan?
§ The Prime MinisterI can certainly do so, because the Defence Review was planned within a total of £2,000 million and not the much more fantastic figures for which right hon. Gentlemen opposite are pressing, and included the figures which were quoted in the National Plan. The two are completely consistent with one another.
§ Mr. BraineIn considering these matters, will the Prime Minister bear in mind the close ties of blood and sentiment and economic interests which bind our country with Australia and New Zealand? Will he also bear in mind that in times of difficulty Australia and New Zealand have never hesitated to cross half the world in order to assist us, and will he therefore clearly recognise that a moral obligation rests upon us to do the same?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, Sir. We fully recognise all these matters within the limitations set out in the Defence White Paper, which means that we shall play our part to the full extent of our resources. But what we are not going to do is to do what some right hon. Gentlemen opposite keep telling us to do, which is to become a world policeman capable of action in a major role in all parts of the world.
Earl of DalkeithIs it not a fact that if the Government carry on as at present the country will very soon not be able to afford any defence east of Margate?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir. One of the purposes of the Defence Review was to see that we should accommodate defence expenditure at home and abroad within a total which was possible to the country and not break the country's back with the kind of projects which nearly brought the country to financial ruin two years ago.