§ 30. Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of State for Defence if he will put in the Library a report of the remarks by Sir Geoffrey Baker, Chief of the General Staff, at Canberra on 28th January regarding the desirability of British troops fighting in Vietnam; whether such a statement was given prior approval; and if it is now the Government's intention to send British troops to Vietnam.
§ Lord BalnielWhen answering a question at a Press interview, the Chief of the General Staff, speaking from a soldier's point of view, recalled the long tradition of comradeship in arms linking the British Australian and New Zealand Armies. From this point of view, he felt sad that the continuity of the tradition had been broken. He made clear that it would not be appropriate for him to comment on the political aspects of involvement in the Vietnam conflict. As the Prime Minister informed the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) on 16th July, 1970, it has always been the Government's position that British troops should not be sent to Vietnam.— [Vol. 803, c. 1725.]
§ Mr. AllaunWe on this side of the House are very glad about the last part of the reply, but did not the General say that he would like to see British troops fighting alongside the Australians in Vietnam? Is it constitutionally correct for generals to express opinions on such matters publicly?
§ Lord BalnielThe Chief of General Staff was answering questions in an impromptu fashion and there is no verbatim record of what he said. My answer is a correct reflection of what he said. I think that the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) is simply trying to cause mischief. He is well aware that the General was simply expressing an emotional sentiment about troops who on a number of previous occasions had served alongside British troops. Equally, the General went out of his way to emphasise that it would not be appropriate for him to make any political comment.
§ Mr. Edwin WainwrightWill the noble Lord say whether he agrees with what the General said and whether any admonition has been given to him for making such an awful statement?
§ Lord BalnielI agree with the emotional sentiment which he expressed about troops who on a number of occasions in previous years had come to the help of British troops and that it was sad, in that respect alone, that we were not there to help them. But the Chief of the General Staff made it absolutely clear that he was in no position to comment on the political issue of the presence of British troops in Vietnam.
§ Later —
§ Mr. Frank AllaunOn a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I have waited until 3.30 p.m. before raising this matter. I wish to draw your attention to the Answer to Question No. 30 given to me by the Minister of State for Defence. You may recall that the Minister of State said that my Question was making mischief. If it is making mischief to oppose the sending of American troops to Vietnam or any suggestion of British troops being sent there, then I and many hon. Members plead guilty.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to proceed. That is not a point of order. It is an argument. 784 It may or may not be valid, but it is not a point of order.
§ Mr. AllaunFurther to that point of order. I am asking the Minister of State to withdraw—…
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Again that is not a point of order. I have no doubt that the Minister of State heard what the hon. Gentleman said.
§ Mr. DalyellFurther to the point of order. As one who previously tried to raise this subject under Standing Order No. 9, may I ask whether, to save the time of the House, we could have a clarification from the Minister responsible of exactly what he meant in answer to my hon. Friend?
§ Mr. SpeakerNot under the guise of a point of order.
§ Mr. George ThomsonFurther to that point of order. With respect, I understood —…
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I have ruled that it is not a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman may raise a fresh one.
§ Mr. George ThomsonOn a fresh point of order. I understood, with respect, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. Friend was coming to the point that, in view of the unsatisfactory answer by the Minister, he wished to raise this matter on the Adjournment. May I further say that I had intended to make these points to the Minister if, Mr. Speaker, you had not at that point called the Prime Minister's Questions.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Again, I do not think that was a point of order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise the matter on the Adjournment, he should have done so at the appropriate time.
§ Mr. AllaunMr. Speaker, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.