Concorde (Hansard, 25 March 1974)

§ 2. Mr. Biffen
asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on the current production and sales of the Concorde aircraft; and what changes are expected in the prospective 12 months.

§ 3. Mr. Dalyell
asked the Secretary of State for Industry what convenient figures he has for the cost of Concorde.

§ 4. Mr. Bruce-Gardyne
asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on the future of the Concorde aircraft project.

8. Mr. Adley
asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on his policy for the future of Concorde.

§ 12. Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a progress statement on Concorde production.

§ 22. Mr. Pattie
asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on Government policy on the future of Concorde, in the light of the proposals announced by the French Government on 19th February.

§ The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn)
I have already given the principal facts about Concorde to the House on 18th March. 4 I shall be having my first meeting with M. Achille-Fould and M. Guichard on 29th March.

§ Mr. Biffen
When that meeting takes place, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the French that, notwithstanding the strident noises that will emit from the aviation lobby, there is a widespread national acceptance, albeit tinged with regret, that the economics of this aircraft point unerringly to its early cancellation?

§ Mr. Benn
I accept that the hon. Gentleman has taken that view, which he held in anticipation of the latest figures before the recent statement was made. He will recognise that one merit of proceeding as we have done is that a variety of views and interests can be represented, and we intend to take those in hand. My talks with the French will be on the basis of a cordial and frank relationship.

§ Mr. Dalyell
What was the nature of the undertaking given by the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) to British Airways in April 1972? Was it in any way suggested that the cost of supersonic operations of Concorde would be undertaken by the British Treasury and underwritten by it?

§ Mr. Benn
My hon. Friend will recall that the then Minister for Aerospace and Shipping made a statement in the House on 25th May that year when he made it clear that the Government would be prepared to review the financial position with the board in the light of the outcome of the board's operations and to see that, if necessary, steps were taken to ensure that the British Airways Board maintained a sound financial performance.

§ Mr. Bruce-Gardyne
May I sincerely congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on publishing figures which the House would have benefited from having a long time ago? Now that he has published the figures, which confirm what many of us suspected—namely, that any super first-class passenger carried by this aircraft would also carry a fat taxpayer's subsidy —can he assure the House that he will proceed with his ideas when in opposition for a Select Committee of inquiry into the whole bizarre business of this example of State enterprise?

§ Mr. Benn
The hon. Gentleman has kindly referred to the fact that the figures were published. It follows from that that views and interests can be represented, but it would not be for me to make any proposals about a Select Committee. It is clear that the Government are ready to hear representations generally.

§ Mr. Loughlin
Will my right hon. Friend express an opinion about the newfound enthusiasm for dispensing with Concorde, even amongst Opposition Members who represent Bristol constituencies?

§ Mr. Benn
Although I understand my hon. Friend's view, I do not think that in a case of this kind, in which there are complicated decisions to be made, we benefit by probing into the motives of others. We must assume that the House, in common with everyone else, is trying to reach a sensible conclusion to a difficult issue.

Mr. Adley
Although wholly applauding the right hon. Gentleman's efforts in the attempt to mobilise the workers and the TUC against some of his Cabinet colleagues, whose enthusiasm for Concorde may be less than his, may I warn him that if he fails he is likely to earn for himself a reputation as the butcher of the aircraft industry which would far exceed the reputation which attached to his right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary who dealt with TSR2 in a most unsatisfactory manner?

§ Mr. Benn
The hon. Gentleman, who did not remain as a candidate in Bristol during the last election, is not the best person to seek to advise me on the relationships of confidence that I have established. It is accepted that in publishing the figures there will be anxiety, but in parallel with that will be the opportunity for public discussion.

§ Mr. Lipton
Will my right hon. Friend agree that, although it is a pity, indeed a tragedy, the time has now come to simplify the situation, scrap the whole project and devote the money to better purposes?

§ Mr. Benn
I think it follows that, if the Government publish the information before reaching a decision, there is something to be said for taking advantage of that, for allowing representations to be made about it. To telescope the process 6 of decision with the process of publication would deny the purpose of publication.

§ Mr. McNair-Wilson
Will the right hon. Gentleman give us a little more information about the possibility of cancelling the project? As I understand it, the 1962 treaty takes us up to the time of the certificate of airworthiness. If that is the case and we seek to cancel it on this side of the Channel, is there anything to prevent the French from going on with the project? To what extent are our subcontractors already involved in the French production?

§ Mr. Benn
I cannot answer the latter part of the question except to say that there is clearly a close connection between subcontractors on both sides of the Channel with the production being undertaken by the two partners. On the legal matters, a question would have to be addressed elsewhere. All I would say to the hon. Member is that my talks with the French would be on the basis that they should he entered into in good faith. That is what the French would expect and, I think, what the House would expect as well.

§ Mr. Pattie
Will the Secretary of State agree that, in view of the prevailing uncertainty, he should consider a visit to the BAC work force at Weybridge, in my constituency? Will he also accept that his statement to the House a week ago was defective in the sense that no allowance or mention was made of the possibly huge sums of money that might be demanded by the French Government in compensation if the Government unilaterally withdraw from the project?

§ Mr. Benn
I have had the opportunity not of visiting Weybridge but of having talks with people representing the work force at Weybridge. Not only Weybridge but Hurn is affected, quite apart from other parts of the country where Concorde is produced. The latter point in the supplementary question does not arise. I must stress what I said in answer to an earlier Question: that I expect my discussions with the French to be on the basis that as partners we would look together at a problem common to us both.

§ Mr. Moonman
It will be clear that the aircraft has already cost six times more 7 than was originally envisaged. To avoid a further £500 million expenditure, will my right hon. Friend consider an alternative manufacturing policy with a number of projects like QTOL?

§ Mr. Benn
I think the House recognises that the development of the aircraft industry in this country, which has an important role to play, requires us to look at other projects from time to time, and that would be my programme as well. The House would be misleading itself if it thought that the substitution of another project at this moment would have any bearing on the social and economic consequences that might flow from the failure of the Concorde aircraft.

§ Mr. Chataway
Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether British Airways consulted the Department before publishing its estimates of running costs, which are obviously very damaging to the possible sales of Concorde and which will be challenged by many people? Will he also say whether he accepts those estimates?

§ Mr. Benn
I am not responsible for figures published by British Airways. In my statement last week I indicated the range of loss in operations that might be sustained by British Airways based on information available to me. What has emerged from publication of the figures is that other people have comments to make on the figures that were published and would like to argue the figures. That is one of the additional advantages of making public information that otherwise would be available only to the Government. All these figures were available to the right hon. Gentleman's Government before they left office.

§ 7. Mr. Tebbit
asked the Secretary of State for Industry what discussions he has had with the British Aircraft Corporation concerning the future of Concorde.

§ Mr. Benn
I have had frank discussions with the senior management of BAC and Rolls-Royce (1971), the trade unions and all levels of staff employed on the project.

§ Mr. Tebbit
Which of those discussions took place before the right hon. Gentleman's statement on 18th March?

§ Mr. Benn
I can answer that very candidly. I told the House last week that I notified my French colleague as a matter of courtesy on the day before I made the statement in the House, in accordance with the practice at ministerial level. The text of the statement that I made in the House last Monday was not made available to the management until after the statement had been made, and I did not consult the trade unions until I had left the Chamber, when they were waiting for some consultation.

§ Mr. Tebbit
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman heard my question. I asked him what discussions he had had with the British Aircraft Corporation before making his statement. He answered a totally different question.

§ Mr. Benn
I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman's question. I thought that he was dealing with whether I had told the House first, as I did. However, I did not have discussions on the basis of the statement with the management before I made the statement, because I thought it right that the statement should be made in the House and that everybody should hear it in the House and not in private discussion.

§ Mr. Emery
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he has had any further thought about the cancellation charges covering all the subcontracting factors, especially with regard to the question of aircraft electronics? There is a major worry that the figure he gave to the House does not cover many of the subcontracting extra charges which would fall due in the event of cancellation.

§ Mr. Benn
The point that the hon. Member makes would no doubt be made to Ministers. All I would say is that, on publication of figures that were previously privy to the Government, it is inevitable that people will either ask questions about those figures or suggest that in some respects they are an overestimate or an underestimate. This is part of the process we had in mind in making available figures hitherto confined to Ministers.