On 11 February 1955, the chairman of the committee of experts of the working party on production and standardisation of armaments drafts an informal note expressing his doubts as to whether the work method of the committee will enable it to complete the task required of it. In his note, the chairman offers a series of suggestions that could improve the results of the studies carried out by the committee of experts, particularly linking the various studies to provide an interconnected summary of the question of standardisation.

On 10 June 1976, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates the reply by the WEU Council to Assembly Recommendation 281. The Council notes that all the countries in the Atlantic Alliance have a duty to contribute to security in the light of the increasing strength of the Warsaw Pact’s forces, particularly by developing a competitive armaments industry that has sufficient means for research and production. The Council encourages any initiatives that promote cooperation and interoperability in the field of armaments. It welcomes the results obtained by the European Programme Group (IEPG) and points out that avoiding destandardisation is as important as promoting standardisation. These matters are dealt with in WEU, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), the Eurogroup and the IEPG, and there is no need for a new list of armaments programmes to be drawn up. The Council has asked the Standing Armaments Committee to produce a descriptive analysis of the situation of the armaments industries in the WEU Member States so as to provide a clearer insight into the industrial and economic implications of the standardisation of armaments. Despite the difficulties involved in this cooperation, the Member States attach particular importance to these activities and will not let themselves be discouraged.

On 2 February 1955, the working party on production and standardisation of armaments holds its sixth plenary meeting in Paris. At the meeting, Sir Christopher Steel, United Kingdom representative discusses the proposals submitted by his government in document PWG/A/10. He notes that, while the British proposals exclude certain aspects of the French plan which are unacceptable to the United Kingdom and some other delegations, they are based on the existing machinery. French representative Alexandre Parodi observes that agreement seems to have been reached on the aims to be pursued and the methods to be used but that there is still some divergence of views on the scope and powers of the committees on standardisation and production that are to be established. During the discussion on the timetable for future sessions, the French representative points out that the memorandum is only a basis for discussion and hopes that all the parties will continue to work together in a conciliatory atmosphere.

The minutes of the 110th meeting of the Council of Western European Union (WEU) at ministerial level, held in Rome on 5 March 1958, focus on the debates on cooperation in arms research, development and production. British representative Selwyn Lloyd believes that multilateral consultations on the subject are possible but that most countries are limited by programmes that have already been adopted. In order to establish a definite production programme, the United Kingdom thinks that consultations should begin on a bilateral basis. The British Government has therefore begun discussions with Germany, France and the Netherlands and will shortly hold talks with Italy. The United Kingdom is keen to conclude other bilateral agreements with the Member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and WEU and to keep its WEU partners informed. The end product of this cooperation should be made available to all the members of WEU and NATO. Finally, Selwyn Lloyd refers to a statement made in the House of Commons by the Minister for Supply to the effect that the United Kingdom is seeking to cooperate not only with the Americans but also with the countries of Europe, which share similar industrial and strategic problems. The German representative, Heinrich von Brentano, believes that difficulties particularly arise when attempts are made to solve problems by pursuing several separate lines and that it would be useful for the chairmen of the steering committees set up by the various different arrangements to meet with the members of the Standing Armaments Committee (SAC). He also suggests that the North Atlantic Council should make use of the experience of the SAC. French representative Maurice Faure supports the position of the German representative and confirms that after discussing the matter for so many years, it would be regrettable if the Member States were unable to coordinate their efforts; he believes that success depends on the political determination of the governments to promote effective cooperation. Selwyn Lloyd also agrees with the German proposal and suggests that the North Atlantic Council should refer the matter to NATO before the meeting of the NATO Defence Ministers.

The minutes of the 420th meeting of the WEU Council, held on 26 May 1971, outline the debates on the activities of the Standing Armaments Committee (SAC). The Prefect Mr Roux, Secretary-General of the SAC, raises the problem of the Committee’s inactivity and calls for the activities of some sub-groups to be transferred to the SAC. He suggests that a group of independent experts should examine this question. French Ambassador Geoffroy de Courcel is particularly struck by the problem of relations between the ad hoc group and the SAC. He notes that, given the complexity of the question, he is currently unable to give a reply on the proposal to set up a group of experts. The British Ambassador Sir Thomas Brimelow and the Netherlands representative emphasise that the problem should be dealt with at ministerial level. The British representative is of the view that preparations for the meeting of 1 July should take differences of opinion into account, without losing sight of the possibility of setting up a committee of experts. Following the explanations given by Mr Roux, Geoffroy de Courcel notes the disadvantage of having armaments problems addressed by representatives that do not hold sufficient delegated powers from their military authorities. He confirms that he will ask his government whether the question of the SAC can be included on the agenda for the meeting of the Council of Ministers, though he is not sure that this will be possible.

On 12 March 1980, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates the Council’s reply to WEU Assembly Recommendation 337 on political conditions for European armaments cooperation. The final text reproduces the draft prepared by the United Kingdom delegation, also adding that the Council is not empowered to make any statements to the Assembly on behalf of the independent European Programme Group (IEPG). But it will continue to encourage exchanges of information between the two organisations, and members of the Assembly are free to question their own governments about the IEPG’s work.

On 17 April 1957, the extract from the minutes of the 87th meeting of the Council of Western European Union (WEU) outlines the address by Michael Cary, Chairman of the International Secretariat of the Standing Armaments Committee (SAC), on relations between FINABEL and the SAC, particularly the different views on the procedure for the development of weapons. FINABEL is willing to go ahead without the United Kingdom if the country is not prepared to examine the military characteristics established within FINABEL. British representative Lord Samuel Hood summarises the British position on this matter and affirms that his government is not prepared to join FINABEL, firstly because it does not share the view that the procedure for arms development should separate an examination of the military characteristics from the technical, economic and production considerations, and secondly because FINABEL contributes to the idea of duplication with the military structure of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. The German representative, Ulrich Sahm, agrees with Lord Hood that the method adopted in the SAC of inviting military representatives to take part in the discussions is the best way of achieving closer cooperation between FINABEL and the SAC.

On 21 November 1977, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates a note containing the reply from the WEU Council to Recommendation 297 on a European armaments policy, which is largely based on the proposal from the French delegation (WPM(77)25/1). The Council notes that it has urged the WEU Member States to make every effort to maintain a viable European armaments industry by ensuring the interoperability of their equipment and standardisation. The Council also refers to the mandate given to the Standing Armaments Committee (SAC) to produce an analysis of the situation of European industry in the armaments sector and to the importance of the work of the independent European Programme Group (IEPG), which will be able to provide the SAC with some of the data it needs for its analysis. Finally, the Council affirms that it has always supported the initiatives of the North Atlantic Council and its dependent bodies in the areas of armaments and the standardisation and interoperability of equipment.

On 30 April 1980, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates the Council’s reply to Recommendation 338 on the definition of armaments requirements and procurement in Western Europe, which incorporates a series of amendments proposed by the United Kingdom. The Council considers that the creation of international consortia for the production of defence equipment has been a useful contribution to a better organisation of armaments cooperation in Europe.The Council also believes that if the Member States reach agreement on common requirements, this may stimulate the formation of international consortia. This form of cooperation does not exclude joint production by European and North American firms. The Council is fully aware of the advantages of a market for defence equipment covering the entire Atlantic Alliance. Finally, since it is up to each Member State to decide to what extent sensitive information on defence matters can be circulated to the national parliaments, the Council cannot ask the Chairman of Panel I of the independent European Programme Group to communicate the annual equipment replacement schedules to the Assembly’s Committee on Defence Questions and Armaments.

On 20 May 1975, at the 495th meeting of the Western European Union (WEU) Council at ministerial level in London, the ministers discuss the activities of the Standing Armaments Committee (SAC) and the problems of armaments standardisation in Europe. They particularly consider the proposals set out by Belgian representative Renaat Van Elslande, who believes that standardisation and the maintenance of a viable, competitive armaments industry in Europe for the production of large-scale weapons are essential for European defence. But he notes that the idea of ‘European preference’ is easier to talk about than to achieve. French minister Bernard Destremau and British minister James Callaghan, who chairs the session, agree with the Belgian proposals. They confirm the need for a competitive European industry and better cooperation with the United States. For the French delegate, this cooperation also raises the question of ‘European defence within the Alliance’. He also shares the view of the role the Standing Armaments Committee can adopt in a number of problems relating to standardisation and the cost of operations so that proposals might be submitted to the Council. James Callaghan, on the other hand, believes that WEU is not the appropriate forum at the current time for reviewing the defence industries and suggests that the permanent representatives should start by determining the scope for activity of the SAC in the field of European armaments cooperation and then report back to the Ministerial Council.