HL Deb 29 January 1974 vol 349 cc173-6

2.54 p.m.

LORD SHINWELL

My 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 the French Government advised them of their intention to produce the multi-role combat aircraft; and whether NATO was informed despite the statement by M. Jobert on behalf of the French Government in November last that defence matters must be based on co-operation between the Nine countries.

THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE FOR THE ROYAL AIR FORCE (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL)

My Lords, we have close relations with the French Government over defence equipment matters and we have known for some time of their intention to develop their Avion de Combat Futur. I do not know what information the French Government may have given to their other NATO allies.

LORD SHINWELL

My Lords, is not that an astonishing reply, in view of all the euphoria about European unity? Does it mean that each of the countries associated with NATO can manufacture potentially destructive weapons without consultation with NATO or with each of the other countries?

LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL

My Lords, I do not think it is an astonishing reply. The agreed NATO guidelines require us all to exchange information about our requirements and intentions, and to examine the possibility of collaboration before starting national development of important items of equipment. But the final decision on whether national requirements are compatible with co-operative procurement must rest with the Government concerned.

LORD SHINWELL

My Lords, could we then have an explanation of the speech made in November last by M. Jobert, the French Foreign Minister, in which he said that co-operation in defence matters in the E.E.C. was essential? What was the meaning of that statement in view of what the noble Lord has just said about the prerogative of each nation to produce weapons of destructive use?

LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL

My Lords, I think I should emphasise that there are in fact a number of co-operative projects going on at the present time. There are three helicopters, there is Martel and there is also the Jaguar aeroplane. M. Jobert in fact made two speeches. We welcome the emphasis of those speeches on the importance of the Atlantic alliance for our common defence, and we share his concern about the problems which face us as Europeans in our future. We believe we must reflect on these pronouncements and act on them, and we hope the French will co-operate with us in the future.

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, while the noble Lord's reply may not be surprising, would he not agree that the situation is really quite deplorable? Does he recall that when the French withdrew from the M.R.C.A. project there was an understanding, to the best of my recollection, that they would not develop an aircraft in competition? Is not the A.C.F. in fact in direct competition? It is another swing-wing aircraft. Was it not agreed to be the most important single project? Indeed, I think my right honourable friend Mr. Healey described it as the heart of our aircraft programme. Now the French are going ahead with their own. Will not the Government make some representations with a view to trying to achieve some co-operation so that this damage which is being done to NATO will at least be appreciated by the French?

LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL

My Lords, I think I ought to correct one statement of the noble Lord, I believe the A.C.F. is not in fact a swing-wing aircraft. There is rather a long history here, which I do not think I should go into at the present time. The aircraft would unquestionably do some of the same jobs as the M.R.C.A. is intended to do, but it does not by any means cover all the areas where the M.R.C.A. would operate. The noble Lord also raised the question about the future development of projects of this kind. We do pass to our allies information as to how development is proceeding, in the hope that they may collaborate with us at any time as the development proceeds.

LORD SHINWELL

My Lords, are we to understand from the noble Lord's replies that the definition of "common defence" means that each of the countries associated with NATO can produce whichever weapons it desires to produce and merely contents itself with conveying information to each of the other countries? Is that the definition of "common defence". Is that the definition of "common unity" in the E.E.C.?

LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL

My Lords, if we get into defining exactly what is meant I think that we run into fairly sticky problems. In practice what we hope to do is to find the areas where we have common interest, but ultimately these must be the decision of the national Governments. All I can say is that we hope to leave the door open, and hope that some of our allies will walk through it.

LORD SLATER

My Lords, in view of the Government's constant attitude of mind with regard to greater European unity, would the noble Lord state whether there is any possibility of the French Government applying to re-join NATO?

LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL

My Lords, I think we are straying rather wide of the original Question there.