HC Deb 02 July 1969 vol 786 cc432-41

3.40 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey)

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, wish to make a statement on the Five-Power Conference on Far East Defence.

The conference took place at Canberra on 19th and 20th June, 1969. Hon. Members will already have seen the communique issued at the end of the conference and will be aware that it was primarily concerned with practical arrangements for defence co-operation in the area during the period of our rundown and after our withdrawal from our mainland bases in South-East Asia by 31st December, 1971.

Malaysia and Singapore reiterated that the defence of their two countries was indivisible and the conference welcomed the substantial progress made by these two countries and the decisions they have taken to develop their own defence capability. The steps taken by these two Commonwealth countries formed an indispensable background to the work of the conference as, indeed, did the decisions announced earlier this year by Australia and New Zealand to maintain forces in the area after our withdrawal.

The conference approved the work already done by the three Advisory Working Groups during the past year, set them a programme of further work and instituted a new Joint Service Advisory Working Group to deal particularly with matters which affected more than one of the Services.

One particular area of importance on which agreement was reached was that of air defence, where the Government of Malaysia announced that it had decided to purchase British mobile radar equipment which will enable the present Royal Air Force station at Western Hill to be closed in September, 1971. The new Malaysian radar will form an important component in the integrated system for the air defence of Malaysia and Singapore in which the other four Commonwealth countries will participate and for which Australia offered to provide the first Air Defence Commander.

Among other practical matters agreed in principle were the establishment of a Commonwealth Jungle Warfare Centre, arrangements for the 1970 major exercise in which all five countries will participate, and training arrangements for all three Services. The next Five-Power conference will take place some time after the major exercise planned for 1970.

The conference took place on the basic understanding that the United Kingdom maintained its decision to withdraw its forces from the area by the end of 1971. Very considerable progress has been made in the practical steps that need to be taken by the other four Commonwealth countries to establish defence co-operation within the area. The conference was further evidence of the determination to work together for peace and security and firm foundations have been laid for continuing development. Indeed, the amount of progress that has been made during the past 18 months is remarkable.

Mr. Rippon

Is the Secretary of State aware that his statement will be regarded at home and abroad as most unsatisfactory? It adds nothing to the communiqué and it is based on the unacceptable premise that United Kingdom forces, in the words of the statement, are to be withdrawn from South-East Asia by the end of 1971.

Will the Government adopt the wise suggestion made last week by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easing-ton (Mr. Shinwell) and, in view of the ambiguities of the Government's defence and foreign policy east of Suez, issue a White Paper? In view of the fact that many of these ambiguities arise from various statements made by the Prime Minister, which is not uncommon, will the Secretary of State make it clear whether or not Lord Shepherd's recent speech in Bangkok represented Government policy?

Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman say something more about the declaration in the communiqué about the joint exercises which are to continue beyond 1971 and which, in the words of the communiqué, are designed to demonstrate the capability of the United Kingdom rapidly to deploy forces to the area? If our forces are to be there most of the time, why cannot they be there all the time?

Mr. Healey

I cannot help feeling that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) tried just a little too hard to make party points.

If I may answer every one of the five questions in turn, the premise on which the British Government's policy was presented is now accepted by all the Commonwealth countries. One of the most interesting things to me was that there was no interest whatever in the views, so far as they could be understood, put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition on his recent tour of Australia and the Far East.

To answer the next question, there are no ambiguities whatever in Her Majesty's Government's policy. Indeed, if there were, I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman would attempt to make such polemical party points about it. But the fact is, as he knows quite well, that we intend to withdraw all our operational forces from South-East Asia by 1971, and this decision is now accepted by the Commonwealth Governments in the area as a firm decision by Britain. No interest whatever was shown to me by anybody to whom I talked in the very ambiguous, obscure, ambivalent and deliberately equivocal statements by the Leader of the Opposition.

As for the statement by Lord Shepherd at Bangkok, of course it represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite, so far as I am able to judge from reports in HANSARD, did not on this occasion, as on so many others, take the trouble to read what he said. What he said was that we shall have the capability of providing forces in the Far East after our withdrawal from our bases in Singapore and Malaysia if we think that it is in our interests and it is our duty to do so. This has always been the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

On the question of joint exercises, the total cost of all the training programmes after 1971 which I announced in Canberra will be well under £1 million a year, both in foreign exchange and resources. The cost of our military presence, the withdrawal of which has been attacked by the Opposition, was £80 million in foreign exchange alone and several times that amount in resources. Perhaps the House would find it easier to discuss this question if the right hon. and learned Gentleman could give us some idea of what his leader means by a modest presence in the Far East.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I remind the House that we have a good deal of business to deal with.

Mr. Shinwell

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I do not expect the Government to abandon their decision to withdraw forces east of Suez in 1971, but the reference he makes to the cost of joint exercises, training and the provision of equipment to Malaysia and elsewhere in that area of £1 million appears to be derisory and is no contribution at all to the defence of that area, should defence at any time be required?

It is precisely because of what I have regarded as ambiguities and misunder- standings that might arise from the communiqué that I have referred to the matter in Questions. In the circumstances it would satisfy the House—if not the Opposition, at any rate a large number of Members on this side—if a White Paper were introduced to explain the situation.

Mr. Healey

With great respect to my right hon. Friend—I know that he takes this matter very seriously from a non-partisan point of view—all the decisions I announced in Canberra to my colleagues, the other Ministers present—decisions which I have announced in part to the House this afternoon—were foreshadowed in the communiqué on the Kuala Lumpur Conference a year ago, which was printed in HANSARD on 17th June, 1968; were dealt with in more detail in last summer's White Paper Cmnd. 3701; were discussed in at least the last two defence debates; and we described in this year's White Paper Cmnd. 3927 how we are planning, even at the present time, to carry out 84 overseas exercises in 20 countries.

Although I recognise that my right hon. Friend has taken careful note of all I have said on previous occasions, I do not think that the Opposition would be greatly benefited if I were to publish a new White Paper, since it is evident that they did not read any of the ones I have already published.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing

Why does the right hon. Gentleman continue to say that we are withdrawing all forces east of Suez when he knows that he has committed the Government to 7⅔ major units remaining in Hong Kong and yet does not include the cost of those in his farcical estimate of £1 million? As he has accepted a responsibility for a general capability east of Suez for major exercises there, for a contribution to S.E.A.T.O. east of Suez and for residual colonial responsibilities, would it not be better to leave a small mobile force there rather than shuttle ships, aircraft and men backwards and forwards at enormous cost in money and time?

Mr. Healey

With great respect to the hon. Member, I have always made it clear that we were not withdrawing all our forces east of Suez. [HON. MEMBERS: "The right hon. Gentleman said so."] Hon. Members do not listen. I believe that the business of the House would be forwarded more if they did.

What I said is that we are withdrawing all operational forces from South-East Asia. I have always made it clear that we were keeping a garrison in Hong Kong and that we were strengthening that garrison when our forces in Singapore and Malaysia were finally withdrawn.

For the hon. Member to talk about the enormous cost of exercises is—I hesitate to use the word "ludicrous"—slightly foolish, since the total cost of these exercises and the training will be well under £1 million a year after 1971. This type of training and exercise would have to be carried on somewhere in the world, whether or not some of it is carried on east of Suez.

Mr. Frank Allaun

May I put a question to my right hon. Friend from a diametrically opposite point of view? Is he aware that the overwhelming majority of Members on this side of the House warmly welcome the determination of the Government to withdraw by 1971? However, by retaining so many planes, ships and men in a reserve capacity maybe elsewhere, is he not losing a good deal of the valuable saving which would otherwise be achieved?

Mr. Healey

I am grateful to my hon. Friend—praise and thanks from that particular quarter are always extremely agreeable to me.

I want to stress this point very seriously. We do not propose to keep any forces in the European area after 1971 in a general capability, beyond those that we require for our formal responsibilities for the defence of Europe and the seas around it. This will give us a general capability which we can, with the agreement of our allies, deploy elsewhere. We shall, however, still maintain a garrison in Hong Kong which is a constitutional, colonial responsibility, which we retain so long as Hong Kong is a colony.

Mr. Amery

Has not the right hon. Gentleman fallen between two stools? If the Government do not recognise any interests to defend or obligations to discharge, what is the point of maintaining a capability east of Suez? On the other hand, if they do agre with us that there are interests to defend and responsibili- ties to discharge, would it not be better to enter into precise commitments and make provisions to fulfil them?

Mr. Healey

The right hon. Gentleman, whose return to the House I welcome for many reasons, said that we are maintaining a special capability for operations east of Suez. This is precisely what we decided to renounce, but we shall have a general capability in Europe on which we could draw if we regard it in our interests or as our duty to do so for operations east of Suez. This is leaving out the question of Hong Kong.

The right hon. Member has substantial experience in this field and will know that the cost of maintaining a permanent presence of operational forces in the Far East with stock-piles, requiring forces to turn them over, to look after them and to defend them, is incomparably larger than the cost of exercises in the Far East, which we would have to carry out somewhere in the world.

I hope that now the right hon. Gentleman has returned to the House he will talk to some of his right hon. Friends on the Front Bench and explain to them the enormous cost of the commitments to which his Government, when he was a Minister, pledged this country some years ago.

Mr. Dalyell

May I put a question dealing with paragraph 9 of the communiqué? What is the percentage of the British contribution to the proposed jungle school of warfare and, dealing with joint training, is it envisaged that there are any joint O.P.M.A.C. operations with the Indonesians? Has he discovered what the Leader of the Opposition has said about keping forces to resist the Chinese?

Mr. Healey

The British contribution to the Commonwealth Jungle Warfare Centre will consist of a demonstration platoon, probably of Gurkhas initially, and a very small number, a dozen or so, of administrative personnel. Contributions will be made by the other four Commonwealth countries interested in contributing to the Centre.

On the question of miltary aid to the civil community we shall continue this, not only in the context of Five-Power collaboration. When I was in Thailand I was able to tell the Thai Government that we are proposing to do some useful work for the civil population in a certain part of Thailand, which will be appreciated by them as much as the work we have done in the past.

On the question of Indonesia, my hon. Friend knows that we are in touch with the Indonesian Government about doing some work which will be of use to the Indonesian Government as well.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles

On the subject of the general capability for rapid reinforcement, we note in the communiqué that the facilities of the armament depot in Singapore are to continue to be available. We feel that this is a great step forward from the right hon. Gentleman's previous rigid attitude about no stock-piling in any shape or form. Will he assure the House that in this armament depot there will be at least adequate contingency stocks for British forces?

Mr. Healey

I have made it clear at all stages in this process that the ability of Britain to reinforce rapidly, and the nature of the forces with which she can reinforce, will depend totally on the will and ability of the local Government in the area to maintain the facilities which they must use. There is no question of Britain continuing an armament depot in the Far East after 1971. But if other Commonwealth countries wish to do so they will have the bonus in that not only will they be able to supply their own forces, but those facilities would be available to British forces, if they were ever required.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles

So our stocks will be there?

Mr. Healey

With great respect, I wish that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would listen. What I said is that we shall maintain no operational stocks, no operational manpower in the Far East, after our withdrawal. The attitude of Commonwealth Governments in the area is to some extent handicapped by the total failure of the Opposition to give the slighest indication of what, in practice, is intended by the phrases with which they hope to mobilise Conservative support at the next General Election.

Mr. James Davidson

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on the Liberal bench welcome this statement? What is the intention either in staff or manpower terms, with regard to the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation after 31st December, 1971? Is it the right hon. Gentleman's intention that British troops should continue to use the Commonwealth Jungle Warfare Training Centre after 1971?

Mr. Healey

Dealing with S.E.A.T.O. first, I have made it clear in two White Papers and three debates that we propose to withdraw all our force declarations to S.E.A.T.O. contingency plans before our withdrawal from our bases in Singapore and Malaysia is complete in 1971. At present, we have a small number of medium and low-rank British officers at the S.E.A.T.O. headquarters on the planning side, some of whom at any rate we would plan to retain there after the end of 1971.

As to the Commonwealth Jungle Warfare Centre, we regard it as necessary to retain jungle warfare training facilities. We are grateful to our four Commonweath partners for agreeing to participate in the running of the school with us. The total number of British personnel involved permanently will amount at the most to a platoon and a small number of administrative staff. We plan to train one battalion twice a year for a period of about eight weeks each at the school, and to train units and sub-units of a smaller size for the rest of the year.

Mr. Maudling

The Secretary of State has repeatedly chided us about not listening to the words of wisdom which fall from his lips. May I therefore put this point to him? The right hon. Gentleman has said several times that Commonwealth Governments were not interested in discussing with him the Conservative Party's plans for post-1971. May not the answer be that they know he will not be in office?

Mr. Healey

I am immensely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for asking that question. I think that there are two reasons why there was a total disinterest among Commonwealth Governments in the views of the Opposition. First, they have not the slightest idea what the Opposition mean by their views. But, secondly, they believe that they will continue to be in opposition for a very long time.

Dr. John Dunwoody

May I assure my right hon. Friend that his announcement will be widely welcomed as a rational and realistic approach to the difficult problem east of the Suez. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the joint exercises and training programme will be concerned with external defence of our South-East Asian partners and not in any way with internal security or civil disorder?

Mr. Healey

Yes, I can confirm that. It is important for the House to know that any capability or commitment which is intended to be maintained in the area after 1971 by countries outside the area, like Australia and New Zealand, will be strictly reserved for external defence and not for internal security.

Perhaps I might add, in answer to many earlier questions, that the cost of our activities in this area after 1971, as was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), will be very small compared with what it has been in the past. But anyone who has read the papers, or, newspapers, or the Sunday Times report a fortnight ago, on the Canberra Conference, will recognise that what we are prepared to do is very much welcomed by all our Commonwealth partners.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I must protect the business of the House.

Forward to