HC Deb 25 June 1969 vol 785 cc1483-5
14. Mr. Goodhew

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what forces are

Mr. Boyden

The figures are not as good as we would wish, but, comparing 1969 with 1968, the inflow of adults and young soldiers is 500 up. The inflow of juniors in 1969, 1968 and 1965 was much the same. Therefore, the situation is not as bad as some hon. Members make out.

Following are the figures:

declared to the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation; and what forces will be declared to the Organisation in 1971–72.

Mr. John Morris

It is not the practice to give this kind of information. We have, however, made it clear that we shall not declare forces to S.E.A.T.O. contingency plans when the withdrawal of our forces from Malaysia and Singapore is completed.

Mr. Goodhew

Like the Prime Minister yesterday, the hon. Gentleman has insisted today that there is no automatic commitment in this area after 1971, whereas Lord Shepherd last month was saying that Britain would maintain a capacity to send a significant force to the area after our withdrawal from Malaysia and Singapore. Who is right? What is going on? Are the Government saying that they regard themselves as committed to S.E.A.T.O. or not?

Mr. Morris

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman fully understands the distinction. This matter has been canvassed from time to time in many defence debates in which he and I have taken part. There is a difference between an automatic commitment and what my noble Friend was referring to as our general capability. This has been made clear in our defence debates and is one of the points which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was emphasising yesterday.

Mr. Luard

By deciding to maintain capacity to send forces to the area rather than maintain them permanently on the spot, are not the Government putting themselves in the same position as many other members of S.E.A.T.O., including the United States until the Vietnam war began?

Mr. Morris

We have declared our policy. The basic policy of withdrawing from the Far East on the terms I have referred to stands completely unchanged.

Mr. Rippon

Did Lord Shepherd's speech in Bangkok represent Government policy or do the Prime Minister's statements yesterday? They both cannot.

Mr. Morris

I have been pointing out in the course of answers to three questions that there is no inconsistency. There is a complete distinction, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred to yesterday, between an automatic commitment and a general capability.