§ 3.13 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALDMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, before the announcement by Her Majesty's Government on 4th June of our withdrawal from the European Launcher Development Organisation, they had asked our partners for proposals to make a change in the distribution of costs; or whether, before the meeting on 9th June any such proposals had been put forward by any of our partners.]
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND FOR THE COLONIES (LORD BESWICK)My Lords, no specific proposals were put forward either way. I must correct the suggestion made by the noble Lord, 141 that the June 4 announcement notified withdrawal of the United Kingdom from ELDO. As my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary made clear in another place on June 13, Her Majesty's Government had not notified withdrawal.
LORD ST. OSWALDMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, although his noble friend the Foreign Secretary made one thing clear on the occasion to which he has referred, he has made the very opposite clear on other occasions? There was on June 4, as he noticed, an announcement by the Foreign Office that,
The Government has concluded, after a careful and detailed consideration of all the factors involved that the latest proposals for modifying the initial programme still do not constitute a sufficient basis for continuing United Kingdom participation in the activities of the organisation"—that is to say, ELDO—and it has so informed its partners".I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he does not think that this is in direct contradiction to the reference he has made. I would also ask him, without reading out the item, whether he noticed on the front page of The Times on June 6, under the heading "Minister defends decision", the words attributed to his right honourable friend, which were also in direct contradiction to the statement, to which he has referred, in the House of Commons?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, I had read the article in The Times. I had also read the paragraphs in the Daily Telegraph, from which the noble Lord was earlier reading. I do not believe there is any question of any contradiction. If there was ambiguity in the statement which the Foreign Secretary made, it arose from the fact that the original agreement to which it referred—an agreement concluded by the Members opposite—was sloppily worded, and I think a good deal of the confusion which has since arisen has done so because of the ambiguity of that original agreement.
§ LORD BYERSMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, when he refers to the fact that the Government had not notified withdrawal, whether or not this means that we are going to continue to co-operate with ELDO?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, what it means is that they had not notified withdrawal. It was not legally possible to withdraw from the agreement before 1969, but there had been an expectation that there would be a continued programme. What the aide-mémoire referred to was our inability to continue with that further programme, unless we were satisfied as to the economic advantages and the technical viability of the scheme.
LORD ST. OSWALDMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he thinks he can really get away with an offensive remark about sloppily worded agreements by a previous Administration, as a method of covering up completely contradictory statements by his own right honourable friend? I say that because he has not pointed out to the House in which way the two statements—the statement to which he himself referred, and the statements to which I referred today—can possibly be harmonised.
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, in that case I would suggest to the noble Lord that he reads to-morrow the Answer which I have given to the noble Lord on the Liberal Benches.
§ BARONESS HORSBRUGHMy Lords, can the noble Lord make clear to us the difference between "withdrawal" and "not continuing"?
§ LORD BESWICKYes, certainly, my Lords. Withdrawal in this case, as applied by the noble Lords opposite, or by the newspapers to which they refer, refers to the agreement into which we had entered and which could not legally have been terminated before a date in 1969. The decision not to participate was not to participate in the further development of this project.
LORD ST. OSWALDMy Lords, so I am right in thinking that the announcement made by the Foreign Secretary at London Airport, and in the Foreign Office communiqué, was intended to be taken as an announcement of retirement from the Organisation in 1969, which was, of course, the earliest point at which it would be permitted under Article 23 of the Convention? Am I to take that as being the case?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, I should not like to rush into any statement that the noble Lord is right in thinking anything.
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, I really suggest that it would be much better if we gave constructive thought to the economic advantages of the scheme and to its technical usefulness, instead of trying to score Party political points.
§ LORD SNOWI am sorry to have intervened, my Lords, but I was going to ask a question. May I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that almost all technological opinion is deeply distressed about the entire project, and that it is extremely hard on technological grounds to find any justification whatsoever for it?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, I think that is true, and had the noble Lords opposite spent half as much time, and half as much energy, in devising proper checks and safeguards when they first entered into the project as they have since done in inventing these allegations of lack of faith on the part of the present Government, we might very well have had a much more sensible project.
LORD ST. OSWALDI am sorry, my Lords, but I have to ask one more supplementary question as a result of the direct challenge which the noble Lord issued tome just now. Does he consider that the good name of this country for fair dealing among our own European partners is a Party political point, or does he consider that these matters are above Party politics?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, it is because I believe that these matters are above Party politics, because I believe that it is wrong to rush, as noble Lords have done on this matter and on certain other matters, into challenging the good faith of the present Government, that I think they ought to reconsider their position very closely indeed.