HC Deb 23 June 1966 vol 730 cc906-9
Q4. Mr. William Hamilton

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his talks with representatives of the Australian Government on the question of defence commitments in South-East Asia.

Q7. Mr. Biggs-Davison

asked the Prime Minister what assurances he gave the Prime Minister of Australia on British policy east of Suez.

The Prime Minister

I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave to similar Questions on 14th June.

Mr. Hamilton

Will my right hon. Friend say whether he took the opportunity to tell the Australian High Commissioner that Australia should pay a share of her national income on national defence in that part of the world proportionate to what we are doing, and that if they do not we shall have to reconsider?

The Prime Minister

The responsibilities we carry in that part of the world are by no means limited to the defence of Australia, although I know that my hon. Friend would feel that we must carry out our obligations to Australia. There will be opportunity for further discussion of these defence arrangements in the next day or two when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has talks with the Australian Government in Canberra.

Mr. Biggs-Davison

Has there not been much pleasure both here and in Australia at the Prime Minister's reaffirmation of our obligations to the Commonwealth east of Suez? May we take it that Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom will respond to any request that Her Majesty's Government in Australia may make for arms or other equipment for the Australian forces now bravely fighting in Vietnam?

The Prime Minister

If a statement by me has given pleasure to the hon. Gentleman, I am only too happy. The statement which seems to have given the hon. Gentleman his pleasure now is the statement to the Prime Minister of Australia that we stand by what we said in the Defence White Paper—which the hon. Gentleman himself voted against when it was before the House.

The hon. Gentleman asked that we should give a favourable response to any request for arms for Australian troops in Vietnam. I answered that three weeks ago. The answer remains that we have not been asked and that we are not involved in supplying arms to Vietnam.

Mr. Park

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that these overseas commitments, especially those in South-East Asia, are putting an almost intolerable strain on our economic resources? Will he reaffirm that it is the Government's intention to reduce such commitments as quickly as possible?

The Prime Minister

I have dealt very recently with this question at greater length than I could do at Question Time. It is our intention to carry out our commitments with the minimum cost. We believe that they have been an excessive economic and financial burden. That is why, in the Defence White Paper, we set out our proposals for severely reducing the costs of overseas commitments.

Mr. Heath

What did the Prime Minister mean when he told his party meeting upstairs, as reported in the handout, that when the end of confrontation between Malaysia and Indonesia was ratified, there would be a massive reduction in British Forces in Malaysia? Did he tell the Australian High Commissioner that there would be a massive reduction?

The Prime Minister

Yes, Sir. What I meant by the ratification of the ending of confrontation was that there was an informal agreement, but that it had not yet been officially promulgated by the Indonesian Government. Obviously, we cannot take action, which would be premature until we were certain that confrontation had ended. When that occurs—and we have a very large number of troops in the area because of confrontation and our commitments to Malaysia—and as soon as those troops are no longer required, they will be massively reduced.

Mr. Shinwell

Has there been any revision of the A.N.Z.U.S. Pact, entered into between the United States, Australia and New Zealand in 1951, to the exclusion of the United Kingdom, which was intended to meet all obligations to Australia and New Zealand by the United States?

The Prime Minister

I should want to check on this, but I do not think that there has been a substantial revision of the A.N.Z.U.S. Pact, and nor is there any question of any new military alliance or grouping. We have always had our special relationship with Australia and New Zealand and our obligations there will continue to be carried out but, for reasons which I have explained and in the manner which I have explained, we hope to carry them out much more on the basis not of having an excessive number of troops in those overseas areas, but relying more on the ability to get them there quickly by longer range transport and by the right kind of staging post bases.

Mr. Heath

The Prime Minister misunderstood the point of my question. I was not asking about the ratification of the ending of confrontation, but what he meant by massive withdrawal. What number of troops is involved and which forces would be involved in a massive withdrawal?

The Prime Minister

I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was asking me to explain the whole phrase which he quoted. As for the definition of massive, how many troops; I am certainly not in a position to say by how many the number would be reduced. We will make a statement as soon as the movements begin. I can certainly promise that it will be a very substantial reduction indeed of the numbers in these areas.