§ 6. Mr. Jesselasked the Secretary of State for Trade how many complaints he has received about noise from Concorde.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis)2,832 complaints have been received either during or since the recent endurance flying programme. This figure includes both complaints received by the Department direct and those received first by the British Airports Authority and by British Airways.
§ Mr. JesselWhy do we have to rely on the Americans to enforce British noise regulations at Heathrow?
§ Mr. DavisThe hon. Gentleman is seeking to anticipate the hearings that will start in the United States on 5th January. I am quite certain that the Americans will apply a fairness of judgment in arriving at their decision.
§ Mr. StonehouseHas my hon. Friend any breakdown of complaints received from abroad where Concorde is flown into foreign airports?
§ Mr. AdleyAs my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) is concerned about landing noise in his constituency—
§ Mr. JesselNo, take-off noise.
§ Mr. Adley—will the Minister confirm not only that, for instance, the Boeing 707-320C is noisier than Concorde, but that in 1976 there will be four movements a week of Concorde through Heathrow and 550 of the Boeing 707-320C?
§ Mr. DavisThe hon. Gentleman is quite right. At the Casablanca trials the landing noise of the Boeing aircraft to which he has referred was 120 EPNdbs, compared with the landing noise of Concorde of 116.7 EPNdbs.
§ 16. Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on current negotiations concerning Concorde in which his Department is involved.
§ Mr. Clinton DavisNegotiations are being vigorously pursued so that the scheduled services can start as planned, and statements will be made at the appropriate times.
§ Mr. AdleyDoes the hon. Gentleman agree with the Wall Street Journal that the anti-Concorde industry in the United States is involving itself in what that paper has described as the "meanest kind of politics"? If that is so, and if New York should decide to ban Concorde for spurious environmental reasons, does the Minister agree that British trade unionists would be entitled to consider retaliatory action against the Port of New York Authority, perhaps by ensuring that goods exported from that port by air or sea were subjected to appropriate political delays on entering this country?
§ Mr. DavisIt is far more profitable that we should deal in facts rather than in epithets on this important issue. We are hopeful, as I have said before, that we shall get a fair hearing in Washington, starting on 5th January. As a result, we have reason to believe that we shall not have to deal with the question of retaliation.
§ Mr. StonehouseWill my hon. Friend take this opportunity of denying that the first commercial flight of Concorde from this country will be delayed by disputes over aircrew pay?
§ Mr. DavisI have no reason to believe that we shall not be able to commence our flights as arranged on 21st January, contemporaneously with Air France.
§ Mr. BiffenIn the current negotiations concerning the flight routes for Concorde, have overflying routes been requested from India? If so, what answer has been received?
§ Mr. DavisWe are at present continuing discussions with the Indian Government. I do not think that it would be profitable to go further than that at this stage.