§ 2. Mr. Sheldonasked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will now make a further statement on the Concorde project.
§ 3. Mr. Matherasked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a further statement on the Concorde project.
§ 5. Mr. Carterasked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a statement on the latest stage of development and progress of the Concorde project.
§ 6. Mr. Martenasked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a statement on progress with the Concorde.
§ 17. Mr. Croninasked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a further statement on the future of the Concorde supersonic aircraft.
§ 25. Mr. Wallasked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a further statement on the progress of the Concorde programme.
§ The Minister of Aviation Supply (Mr. Frederick Corfield)I had planned to meet M. Clamant, the French Minister of Transport, on 29th March to review the progress of the project but, at his request, the meeting has been postponed until 22nd April. In the meantime, I have nothing to add to my hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) on 3rd March. —[Vol. 812, c. 1695–7.]
§ Mr. SheldonHas the postponement anything to do with the Rolls-Royce situation, and, further, has it anything to do with the possible escalating of the costs of the engine under the receiver? Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that one of the worst things that can happen is for the decision on the Concorde to be delayed and delayed while at the same time moneys are being spent, trickling into this project? Finally, what further components or materials are being ordered at this moment, pending the final decision?
§ Mr. CorfieldOn the first two supplementary questions, there is absolutely no evidence for the underlying suggestions. The third is another question and I cannot give details at present.
§ Mr. MatherI thank my right hon. Friend for this reply. Is he aware of the increasing number of redundancies at the Weybridge division of B.A.C. in my constituency, amounting to an extra 500 last week, and the urgent need to get this project off the ground? Having flown across the Atlantic twice in a Jumbo jet, I am firmly convinced that this aircraft, the Concorde, has a great future.
§ Mr. CorfieldI accept the latter part of that question. I appreciate that there 511 are certain difficulties, but this is a partnership, and we have to operate with our French partners.
§ Mr. CarterWould the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the future of Concorde will be based on nothing but economic grounds, and that Britain's application to join the E.E.C. will play no part in future determination of policy over Concorde?
§ Mr. CorfieldClearly the whole purpose of these talks is to examine the economic base in the light of the number of orders which seem likely, and on that basis we can make an estimate of a proper price.
§ Mr. MartenWould my right hon. Friend not answer the specific question about Concorde not being part of the bargaining in the Common Market? Also, is B.O.A.C. keen to have it?
§ Mr. CorfieldIt is certainly not part of the bargaining with regard to the Common Market. B.O.A.C. has made it clear that it is anxious to operate the aircraft, and we are in close consultation with the firms to see how best this can be done.
§ Mr. CroninWould the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the minor defect in the Concorde's air intake at supersonic speeds is likely to be corrected shortly, and that he also expects an early termination of his negotiations with B.O.A.C., these being the two principal difficulties in the way of reaching a conclusion?
§ Mr. CorfieldOn the first part of that question, this is indeed a minor problem as I understand it, and I do not think that it will take a long time to rectify. On the second part, the B.O.A.C. attitude is very important, and we shall wish to have a firm undertaking from it as soon as possible.
§ Mr. WallDoes my right hon. Friend think that the meeting which he expects in April will enable him to reach a final decision on a production model of Concorde? What is being done to clear Concorde for operations over the United States?
§ Mr. CorfieldThere has never been any question that the United States was likely to permit supersonic flight over 512 land. The problem of using United States airports is another problem, and on this we are in close consultation with the American Government, through our embassy.
§ Mr. BishopHas the right hon. Gentleman had any consultations with the manufacturers regarding price? Does he realise that interference by the Government on this matter, or at least their observations on the matter, could affect the possibility of airlines ordering, and, of course, the future of the industry, of the project and of those engaged in the industry?
§ Mr. CorfieldOf course I have had consultations with both Rolls-Royce and B.A.C. about prices. The finance will have to be found by the Government, and it is right that we should do so.
§ Mr. McLarenHas not the time come when B.O.A.C. should be directed, in the national interest, to place a number of firm orders for Concorde?
§ Mr. CorfieldNo, Sir, I would not accept that for a moment.
§ 10. Mr. Wilkinsonasked the Minister of Aviaton Supply whether he will make a further statement on when he expects to be able to authorise funding of production Concorde aircraft for airline service.
§ 26. Mr. Geoffrey Finsbergasked the Minister of Aviation Supply whether he is yet able to state when production orders for the next four Concordes will be placed; and if definite performance guarantees can now be given for airlines holding options.
§ Mr. David PriceI have nothing to add to the answers I gave to my hon. Friend on 3rd March.—[Vol. 812, c. 1698.]
§ Mr. WilkinsonDoes not my hon. Friend agree that the time is fast drawing nigh when we must come to a decision on this matter, as his right hon. Friend has assured the House that B.O.A.C. is anxious to operate this aircraft? Is it for reasons of unit price that B.O.A.C. cannot yet make up its mind, or is it a matter of economic operational considerations?
§ Mr. PriceI do not think that the latter supplementary question has anything to do with the Question.
§ 11. Mr. Gryllsasked the Minister of Aviation Supply what estimate has been made by his Department of the total number of workers currently employed in this country on research and development and production work on Concorde, including suppliers and sub-contractors; and what estimate has been made of the likely numbers employed in a typical production year.
§ Mr. David PriceAbout 25,000 people are at present estimated to be employed in a number of firms on the Concorde project, about 20,000 on development and some 5,000 on production. This is expected to increase to a maximum of about 35,000 as the production programme builds up.
§ Mr. GryllsIs my hon. Friend aware that in the industry it has been estimated that in a production year, in the South-East of England, including my constituency, some 12,500 people will be employed and that including subcontractors and induced employment, there will be 21,500 employed in the South-East, including my constituency? Does he not agree that this emphasises the vast importance of giving the go-ahead to Concorde, not only in the national interest, but in the interests of continued employment among my constituents?
§ Mr. PriceI assure my hon. Friend that we are fully aware of the importance of Concorde to many parts of the country.
§ Mr. AdleyWill my hon. Friend again look at the urgent need to assist B.A.C. with marketing arrangements in every way possible, because, while not wishing to criticise the Corporation, many of us feel that it could do with extra encouragement?
§ Mr. PriceI assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend and I will give B.A.C. every encouragement necessary to do its important job.
§ Mr. Greville JannerIs the hon. Gentleman aware of the importance of Concorde to areas such as Leicester, which live largely on their light engineering industries, and the effect which the collapse of Rolls-Royce has already had on the area? In those circumstances, can he give some assurance to the people in my constituency employed in light 514 engineering not only that Concorde will not be cancelled but that these areas, which survived even the depression of the 1930s tolerably well, will not be riddled with unemployment in a few months' time?
§ Mr. PriceI assure the hon. Gentleman that I am well aware of the facts of life as he has put them to the House, but I cannot say anything beyond what was said by my right hon. Friend earlier.
§ 19. Mr. Barnettasked the Minister of Aviation Supply what estimate he has now made of the final research and development costs of Concorde; how much he now hopes to recoup from eventual sales; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. David PriceI have nothing to add to the replies given to similar questions on 9th December and 3rd March. —[Vol. 808, c. 396–7; Vol. 812, c. 1701–2.]
§ Mr. BarnettThat is a disgraceful reply. Outside the House the figures are being freely discussed. The Minister must be aware that there are many who think, while recognising that Concorde could never be an economically viable proposition on the basis of an individual line—[Interruption.] The Minister will be aware—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] The Minister is aware—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]. Judging from his answers, the Minister is not aware of anything, but—
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman must not make observations like that. Will he put it in an interogatory form?
§ Mr. BarnettWill the Minister and the Minister for the Environment recognise that many people outside the House appreciate that Concorde can never be economically viable on the basis of the whole cost, but might well be economically viable on the basis of the costs yet to be paid? Will he therefore recognise that there are many who would be prepared to accept the whole project? He should therefore specifically tell the House, and especially my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), what further commitments have been made—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]. This is expenditure involving 515 the taxpayers' money and authorising production costs.
§ Mr. PriceThe hon. Gentleman's second supplementary question does not arise from the Question. I have nothing to add to what I have said about development costs. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly free to speculate with his hon. Friends as much as he likes, but that does not mean that his speculations are accurate.
§ Mr. AdleyWould not my hon. Friend agree that one of the most beneficial results likely to come from the Concorde is that airlines flying on the North Atlantic route will be able to charge a surcharge for supersonic travel, thus enabling them to realise one of their fondest dreams, which is to put up the fares on the North Atlantic routes, which at present absorb so much of the costs and at the same time provide so little of their profits?
§ Mr. PriceThat is an interesting speculation on my hon. Friend's part, but nothing to do with development costs.
§ Mr. SheldonWill the hon. Gentleman now answer the question which has twice been put to him? Have production materials and components been authorised arising from this decision? What money is being allocated from the House without the House being informed about it?
§ Mr. PriceNo further allocations have been authorised beyond the replies my right hon. Friend and I have given to the same question on previous occasions.