HC Deb 14 February 1968 vol 758 cc1346-7
45. Colonel Sir T. Beamish

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he has given to maintaining a British military presence in the Persian Gulf after 1971, in view of the offer from the States in the area to bear part of the cost and the fact that this would relieve the foreign currency burden; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Healey

As my noble Friend, the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs said recently, it would not be practicable after 1971, without overstraining our national resources, to give a continuing military presence in the Gulf the hacking in men and materials it would need, even with financial contributions from the Rulers. —[Lords, Vol. 288, c. 774.]

Sir T. Beamish

Since the sudden decision to withdraw by 1971 was taken with the sole object of saving foreign currency, and entirely contrary to the Minister's advice on defence, why does not the right hon. Gentleman take this chance of getting the best of both worlds by accepting this most generous offer?

Mr. Healey

I have made it clear, rind so have my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of. the Exchequer, that the objective of the recently announced cuts was not to save foreign exchange but to reduce public expenditure as a whole. As I made clear in our debate in the House at the time, the total cost of a presence in the Gulf must have added to it the cost of any military capability which might be required to support that presence. That is why the decision to leave the Far East by the end of 1971 needed to be accompanied by a decision to leave the Gulf by the same date if the necessary reductions in expenditure were to be achieved.

Mr. Maudling

Will the Secretary of State give figures of the foreign exchange cost and the cost in terms of resources involved in maintaining our position in the Gulf?

Mr. Healey

The foreign exchange cost has been given in previous White Papers. I will consider whether we can give some further information on cost in terms of resources when we discuss the Statement on the Defence Estimates in a few weeks' time.

Mr. Maudling

If this vital decision on foreign policy was based on the cost in resources, the right hon. Gentleman must know the cost.

Mr. Healey

Of course I know many elements of the cost in resources. The right hon. Gentleman must remember, because he was in the House at the time, that among the various elements of military capabilities which we need to keep so long as we are in the Gulf there is the cost of the carrier force whose total functional cost is about £140 million a year.

Mr. Peyton

Is the right hon. Gentleman able to offer any justification for his recent quite extraordinary statement about white slaving and mercenary practices?

Mr. Healey

I made quite clear that we do not believe that even with financial contributions from the Rulers the enormous cost of maintaining a presence in the Gulf after we have withdrawn from the Far East would be justified. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about white slaving? "]

Hon. Members

Resign.