HC Deb 30 June 1966 vol 730 cc2185-8
Q2. Mr. R. Carr

asked the Prime Minister by what authority a statement was issued by the Foreign Office on 4th June, 1966, that the latest proposals for the initial programme of European Launcher Development Organisation did not constitute a sufficient basis for continuing United Kingdom participation in the activities of the organisation in view of the policy of Her Majesty's Government not to withdraw from the European Launcher Development Organisation programme.

The Prime Minister

The statement was issued by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on behalf of the Government.

Mr. Carr

How does the Prime Minister reconcile that with the contradictor,' statement made by the Minister of Aviation in this House? Does not he agree that if there were any doubt about the interpretation of the Foreign Office statement it was put beyond doubt by the personal statement of the Foreign Secretary himself at London Airport, when he did not feel that it was in our best interests that we should remain a member of the E.L.D.O. organisation, which is in direct conflict with what the Minister of Aviation said?

The Prime Minister

The question is whether one remains a passive member or joins in the activities. This was a reference to the joining in the activities, and, of course, the activities were and are escalating in cost. There is now a proposal for further development which is very costly but might in some respects be more encouraging.

Mr. Sandys

Is it not perfectly clear that the Government had firmly decided to pull out of E.L.D.O. and that it was only the outcry here and abroad which made them change their mind?

The Prime Minister

No, Sir; it is not so perfectly clear because it is not a fact. As I have said, there is a difference between continuing in the organisation and continuing very expensive activities. We made it plain—and had done so long before the weekend to which the Question relates—that we could not go along with the very heavy escalating costs and with the costs falling on Britain as a result of the excessive share of those costs which right hon. Members opposite negotiated and committed us to.

Sir G. Nabarro

But would not the right hon. Gentleman remove a great deal of dubiety about this matter by publishing what has been the United Kingdom contribution to costs since the onset of the scheme and what is the proposed contribution in sterling this year and in future years?

The Prime Minister

I will consider that. The cost so far has not gone very much beyond the original estimate. What we are concerned with was the fact that even on the original E.L.D.O. project the cost has much more than doubled and, since there is a widespread feeling that this should be extended by the adoption of the Perigee Apogee System, which would add far more, we were concerned about the ultimate burden on the taxpayer.

Mr. Heath

Is the Prime Minister aware that the Government's original position was not the contrast between continuing to take part in the activities and remaining a member of the organisation, but that in the aide me moire itself of 3rd June sent to other Governments it was said: … the latest proposals do not constitute a sufficient basis for continuing United Kingdom participation in E.L.D.O."— not "in the activities"? The Foreign Secretary himself at London Airport on 5th June said: We feel it is not in the best interests that we remain a member of the organisation"— not of the activities. Therefore, it is not a question of discriminating between these two. On the Foreign Secretary's own statement, it was a withdrawal from the organisation.

The Prime Minister

As I have said, there is a difference between participating in an organisation and remaining a passive member, and this was the point at issue. I was extremely surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, who himself signed the E.L.D.O. agreement, should want to raise these issues. As he knows—and this is the cause of all the difficulties—he and his colleagues made no attempt to protect the British taxpayer against these unlimited——

Mr. A. Royle

On a point of order. Is it in order for the Prime Minister yet again to produce a red herring in answer to a question?

Mr. Speaker

I do not like the raising of "points of order" at Question Time, particularly when they are not points of order.

The Prime Minister

I was saying that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues not only failed to protect the taxpayer but resisted the attempts of other Governments to limit our commitment. Having been one of the negotiators, he will recall that the Dutch Government—[Interruption.]—I shall answer this question and hon. Members opposite may not like it—the right hon. Gentleman will recall that the Dutch Government proposed to stop at £70 million, but that is was the British representative who argued that there should be no limit but that each country should pay its percentage share of all expenditure over the unreal limit of £70 million.

Mr. Heath

I am not in the least surprised that the Prime Minister should try to evade the question put to him. Will he now answer the specific question? Why did the Foreign Secretary say at London Airport on 5th June that the United Kingdom was not to remain a member of the organisation?

The Prime Minister

I have said that my right hon. Friend was referring to continuing the activities of the organisation. All I say is that if the right hon. Gentleman had devoted his very considerable—[Interruption.]—expertise on hair-splitting of these words—[Interruption.]—

Mr. Speaker

We listened to the question and I want to hear the answer.

The Prime Minister

I only wish that the hair-splitting abilities of the right hon. Gentleman, which he is trying to show on these statements, had been devoted at the time when he negotiated to protecting the taxpayer and not deliberately saddling us with these extreme costs.

Mr. Speaker

Mr. Anderson. Question No. 3.

Mr. Barber

On a point of order. Would it be in order for the Prime Minister to answer my right hon. Friend's question?