§ LORD TREFGARNEMy 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 recent disturbances in France have further delayed the first flight of the Concorde prototype being built at Toulouse, and whether, in view of those disturbances, plans ought not to be altered so that the Bristol-built prototype flies first.]
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, the recent disturbances in France seem bound to result in some further delay to the programme. This is a joint programme, jointly reviewed, and all decisions are taken jointly in what is judged to be the best interests of the programme as a whole.
§ LORD TREFGARNEMy Lords, as always, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. He has given a somewhat helpful reply. I wonder if he can say whether work has yet been restarted at the Toulouse works, and also whether the resultant delay, to which he referred, on the prototype which is being built at 688 Toulouse will be reflected on the prototype which is being built at Bristol? Is there any further delay in making the components which are to be used by the Bristol firm but which are being manufactured in Toulouse?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, the components that were the cause of the delay, prior to these disturbances, are manufactured neither in Toulouse nor in Filton; they are a matter of sub-contracting. However, I understand that the development work on these components is virtually completed, and the next stage is to have them installed and have the aircraft flight tested.
§ LORD TREFGARNEMy Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would answer my first supplementary question and say whether work has yet been restarted at Toulouse on the first prototype.
§ LORD BESWICKMy understanding is, "Yes", but I will confirm that.
THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, can the noble Lord say whether there is any truth in the statements in the newspapers that there is some competition between Filton and Toulouse with regard to essential parts of the equipment of the respective aircraft?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, what is true (and I am grateful to the noble Earl for raising the question) is that there seems to be an attempt by newspapers to suggest that there is competition. There was an article on June 12 which stated that the B.A.C. Chairman was trying to get components diverted from the French prototype to the British prototype in order that the British prototype could fly before September. That statement in that article was completely untrue. It just would not be feasible to divert components in that way.
§ LORD TREFGARNEMy Lords, could the noble Lord consider whether a joint reappraisal of the prototype flight programme might be undertaken to see which aircraft can now be prepared most quickly, so that the project itself can go forward with the greatest expedition?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, there are, of course, regular meetings of the Concorde Management Board. I understand 689 that the next meeting will be within the next few days. Almost certainly the programmes at Toulouse and Filton will be reviewed, but the noble Lord who, I know, is interested in this, should bear in mind that it is not simply a question of changing components. These two aircraft are being instrumented for two different kinds of test flying, and one cannot switch from one to the other as simply as some newspaper correspondents seem to suggest.
§ LORD TREFGARNEMy Lords, I accept the point that the two aircraft will be used for different sections of the flight test programme. Would not the noble Lord agree that it is important, in the interest of the programme as a whole, that the flight of the first prototype should take place at the earliest moment, thus confirming the faith of the various international airlines who have taken options on the aircraft?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, I quite agree that it would be a good thing if the aircraft could have its first flight as early as possible. But there is no point in getting a prototype into the air, unless you can then carry out useful testing.