§ Q6. Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Prime Minister if the statement by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the "Twenty-Four Hours" programme on British Broadcasting Corporation television on 6th October on the questions of withdrawal from Malaysia, Singapore and the Persian Gulf by 1969–70, contracting its rôle in Western Germany and a defence budget well below £1,750 million a year, represents Government policy.
§ The Prime MinisterMy right hon. Friend made no such statement, Sir.
§ Mr. AllaunYes, but he gave the Answer that he would not agree to conference policy. Would not this arms squeeze largely avoid the other kind of squeeze, which is a much more painful one? When are we to see the massive reductions which the Prime Minister 212 promised and which nearly all Labour M.P.s are anxiously waiting to see?
§ The Prime MinisterMy hon. Friend had me reading very carefully several times the broadcast of my right hon. Friend, because I thought he might have got something which I was not able to see, but obviously he had not. In regard to the general point, we have debated this frequently in defence and economic debates. Reductions following confrontation are happening and my hon. Friend will see the results of this quite quickly now. In addition, we announced in July a further cut of £100 million in overseas expenditure.
§ Lord BalnielAs the Question refers to withdrawal from Singapore and the Persian Gulf by 1969–70 and this could give rise to widespread misunderstanding, will the Prime Minister make absolutely clear that this is in no way Government policy?
§ The Prime MinisterI do not think the tabling of a Question normally gives rise to misunderstanding. The provision was set out in the Defence White Paper last year and has been confirmed in every defence debate since then. I do not think there is any room for misunderstanding.