THE CONCORDE PROJECT (Hansard, 3 December 1964)

§ LORD MERRIVALE
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE FOR THE ROYAL AIR FORCE (LORD SHACKLETON)
My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are exchanging views with the French Government on the future of the Concorde project. We are hopeful that we shall come to amicable agreement on the best way to proceed. On the second part of the noble Lord's Question, Her Majesty's Government will certainly bear in mind in the current review of the project considerations which are in favour of its continuance as well as considerations which are not.

§ LORD MERRIVALE
My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his non-committal reply, but when he says that Her Majesty's Government are exchanging views with the French Government, does he mean, as was mentioned in the Daily Express to-day, that at last the Prime Minister has replied to the French Prime Minister's letter which was delivered to him several weeks ago by the French Ambassador? There was a short article about it in this morning's Daily Express. Is it to be inferred that this was a reply from the Prime Minister to the French Prime Minister? Would he not agree that any cancellation of the project would be most detrimental indeed to our relations with France? Could I ask him—

§ LORD MERRIVALE
I ask one more question. Would he say, if the project is 1195 continued, as we on this side of the House hope it will be, that it will be purely a European project?

§ LORD SHACKLETON
My Lords, the noble Lord has asked me a lot of questions. I cannot, as the noble Lord knows, and as noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench know, be responsible for what appears in the daily Press. It is true that exchanges have been going on continuously—indeed, only to-day, I believe, a further message has been sent to the French Government—but this is part of a continuing series of discussions on how best to proceed with the matter. The noble Lord asked me whether I thought that cancellation would damage relations with the French Government. I must with complete honesty say that I have not heard that the word "cancellation" has been used in these discussions. I have inquired fairly carefully into this. We have asked for an urgent review of the project for a number of reasons about which, if the noble Lord wishes to press me, I should be glad to go further. I am afraid I have forgotten the noble Lord's third question and perhaps he would repeat it.

§ LORD MERRIVALE
What I should now like to ask the noble Lord is this. Is it not highly probable that if there is any question of cancellation the French Government will lose complete faith in any commercial agreement which exists between our two countries, for would the noble Lord not agree that in effect the agreement is a commercial agreement, not a political agreement, and a commercial agreement which is binding on both Governments? Therefore, the cancellation could lead to retaliatory measures being taken by the French Government.

§ LORD SHACKLETON
The noble Lord may know about what the French Government may do if a hypothetical situation eventuates. I certainly do not. I regard the question as extremely hypothetical. The noble Lord is not helping in what is an important and by no means easy series of discussions, by raising a hypothetical question of that kind. I have already said that, to the best of my knowledge, there has not been discussion of cancellation.

EARL JELLICOE
My Lords, I certainly do not wish to embarrass the 1196 Government on what is clearly a difficult issue. I wish only to say that I, for one, feel that this is not perhaps the happiest page in the Government's first chapter.

§ THE EARL OF LONGFORD
My Lords, may I, with great respect, suggest that the noble Earl phrases his remarks as a question? I am sorry to insist, but he is not posing any sort of question at the moment.

EARL JELLICOE
My Lords, if the noble Earl the Leader of the House had been able to contain himself for one second longer, he would have heard my question—and many of us have long memories of the last thirteen years on this matter. My question is this. Can the noble Lord assure us that, when he talks of a continuing series of discussions with the French Government, this means that there is really frank and free consultation going on, or is there merely a long-range exchange of communications? Is there really full consultation going on?

§ LORD SHACKLETON
My Lords, I think the noble Earl said that he had long memories of the last thirteen years. So have we. I do not think it is in the real interest of these negotiations to discuss them in detail. The noble Earl is well aware that my right honourable friend the Minister of Aviation has been to France, and that there have been a number of discussions of a kind which we hope will lead to a satisfactory and amicable result.
The noble Earl is also well aware, of course, that there are certainly difficulties in the situation, and I think this was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, when he was referring to the contract. It is a fact that there is no break clause in this contract. I am not going out of my way to blame the previous Government, but it is the situation which we find. Therefore we are talking against a background in which we see a very much greater increase than had been expected in regard to the costs of this project. The noble Earl will recall the further developments in this year in regard to this project, and of course the cost has gone up from something like £135 million to £275 million. I make these remarks to illustrate the difficulties 1197 which, very properly I think, should lead any Government to carry out a review of the project.

EARL FERRERS
My Lords, is there any question which noble Lords may ask of Her Majesty's Government, which will receive a clear and distinct answer?

§ LORD SHACKLETON
My Lords, I should be delighted to answer questions which were directly related to the facts, and were not as hypothetical as most of the questions I have had this afternoon.

§ LORD MERRIVALE
My Lords, as I understand that the present position is that the project is under review, may I ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House—as he likes questions—whether he remembers using these words on November 25 with regard to another review [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 261 (No. 13), col. 846]: As a result of that review, the Government had decided that we can adhere to our usual and established policy of honouring firm contracts. That statement was made with regard to the Buccaneer. But as this matter is rather similar, should not this contract be honoured as was the Buccaneer contract?

VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS
My Lords, will the noble Lord not agree that, if this is a commercial contract, it is a most unusual commercial contract in that it seems to have contained neither arrangements for cancelling it if the price rose above a certain point, nor even arrangements for consultation? Is this not a most amazing contract?

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, to whom is the noble Viscount addressing the question? He is allowed to address a question only to Her Majesty's Government not to a noble Lord opposite.

§ LORD SHACKLETON
My Lords, the noble Viscount is making helpful remarks in an interrogative form for the information of your Lordships. I do not really regard the further contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, as adding anything at all.

§ LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH
My Lords, is it always quite convenient 1198 in the middle of commercial negotiations to divulge the details? Is it not somewhat embarrassing, and liable to prejudice the interests of our country, if we go into details in the middle of commercial negotiations of an admittedly difficult character?

§ LORD SHACKLETON
My Lords, I entirely agree and I am very grateful once again to my noble friend.