HL Deb 02 March 1977 vol 380 cc700-28

6.27 p.m.

The Earl of KIMBERLEY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, in view of President Carter's refusal to intervene with the New York Port Authority about Concorde's landing rights at Kennedy Airport, what action the British and French Governments propose to take. The noble Earl said: My Lords, on 20th January of last year I asked a Question in the following terms, that should the decision go against Concorde landing in New York, would Her Majesty's Government be in complete harmony with the French Government as to what they will do? I said that it would be no good shutting the door after the horse had gone. In his reply the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said: My Lords, what happens in the event of what the noble Earl is envisaging is a hypothetical question, and Her Majesty's Government would need very carefully to consider the terms of any refusal which might come from the United States. There has been complete collaboration with the French Government over the presentation of the case for Concorde in the United States, and I certainly expect that very close and complete collaboration to continue."—[Official Report, 20/1/76; col. 350.]

My Lords, it is no longer hypothetical; it is a reality. I understand that M. Cavaille went to Washington last Monday and, in view of—as I like to call it—the "entente Concordiale" that we have between our two countries, one imagines that Her Majesty's Government know why he went, what has happened and what action the French propose to take, and when the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, winds up the debate he may be able to give us some news. I also remember saying in your Lordships' Chamber not all that long ago, when President Carter was only President-elect Carter, that he did not like Concorde then, and he does not seem to have changed his mind very much, alas! So we have the situation, to my humble way of thinking, that in the United States the New York Port Authority are playing a waiting game because they know that the longer they can hold things up the better it will be for them. It may be, with hindsight, that we should have gone to court long ago, but that is cold comfort and does not help us. We have the situation as it is now and that is the one that has to be resolved.

My Lords, what will happen if we fail? We shall have a great many redundancies to start with in BAC at the end of the year, because we cannot sell the remaining five aeroplanes and we cannot possibly lay any more down until we have disposed of those. I should like to quote a paragraph from what the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said to the Royal Aeronautical Society a few weeks ago. I have asked the noble Lord if I may quote him, and he said he would be happy for me to do so. He was talking about redundancies when another aeroplane was cancelled. The noble Lord said: For example, the argument of certain prominent critics that men made redundant by the TSR 2 cancellation and by the Rolls-Royce rundown were quickly and fully utilised in other manufacturing industries just is not proven. The evidence collected by the Department of Employment and by Professor Wedderburn showed that a substantial proportion of that redundant workforce were lost to the country by emigration, lost to industry altogether, or were employed in less skilled occupations. My Lords, that may well be the sad tale at BAC.

We have throughout the world people who knock Concorde for environmental reasons, noise, pollution and exhaust. It is of interest to note, as regards noise, that on 28th February the Minister in another place was asked a Question about the 13 noisiest aeroplanes, one each month for the last thirteen months recorded at London Airport. I will tell your Lordships what they were: there were nine Boeing 707s, three Tridents, and two 747s. Concorde was not the noisiest in any month.

Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY

My Lords, if the noble Earl will allow me, is it not true that the Question was in fact about infringements? Concorde is excluded from it and Concorde could not have been in the list.

The Earl of KIMBERLEY

My Lords, I have the Hansard here. If your Lord-ships will permit me, I will read the Question: Mr. Cope asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will state, for each month since Concorde entered commercial service, which aircraft types recorded the highest noise level at the Civil Aviation Authority fixed monitoring stations around Heathrow?"—[Official Report, (Commons Written Answer), 28/2/77; col. 89.] Exhaust smoke today is negligible, and, anyway, if proper noise abatement techniques are used by the air crews, the noise is not that bad. As I live seven miles from Fairford and I see Concorde on average 25 times a week doing circuits and bumps, I think I am in a position to know a little about it.

My Lords, if President Carter wished to, he could exert potent pressure on New York City, whose financial straits I believe make it very dependent on Washington. The Port Authority's excuse for more time to evaluate data is purely a time-wasting thing; in my humble opinion they are playing a waiting game. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether I am right in saying that the Port Authority have no right to violate an international treaty obligation of the United States. I should also like to ask him whether or not the Port Authority's action is unconstitutional in interfering with the authority of the Federal Government to conduct foreign relations of the United States.

My Lords, if we have a court case as a result of the decision being postponed yet again on 10th March, or it going against us, or even if we win it, no doubt the loser will appeal to the Supreme Court, and it is possible, I suppose, that during this time Concorde will be completely banned. If we were the loser, we might eventually win. But that again is cold comfort. From what I gather, there are one or two slightly encouraging facts. There is a lobby growing in New York among industrialists, labour leaders, and even local residents, who want Concorde because they are beginning to lose business.

My Lords, the reason for my Question is because New York is the key to the commerical success of Concorde. I will, before I finish, slightly deviate, because there is a possible alternative to which I should like to refer later, but without New York, or the alternative, we will not sell and we will not lease the other five aircraft. I would also ask the noble Lord whether he has any news of any agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the French Government about leasing the remaining five aircraft. If the worst happens, we shall not build any more and the existing aircraft will, therefore, never be improved; it will never be upgraded. Therefore, we will not get an improved range; we will not get an improved payload, and the aircraft will not become any quieter. As a result, we shall have thrown £650 million-odd down the drain in this country, and even worse, at the end of this year, 1,500 more BAC workers will probably be made redundant.

May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, whether he has any further news of what I believe was referred to as the "back stairs deal" which was a deal supposedly of the United States Department of Transportation funding an expensive new highway on New York's West Side if Governor Carey instructed the Port Authority to go ahead and admit Concorde. Do they know through the grapevine whether Governor Carey is accepting this?

So, my Lords, what can we do? There appear to me three possibilities: one, litigation; two, the Bermuda Agreement; three, trade. Litigation, as I have already mentioned, I am sure we would win, but it would take a very long time, and perhaps one or two other United States airports would jump on the bandwaggon. Some want it; some do not. The longer it goes on, the longer the Port Authority of New York will be pleased. With regard to the Bermuda Agreement, in renegotiating this agreement no doubt pressure could be brought to bear, but it would be protracted, and it could well complicate other important matters and issues.

So I come to trade. There is a long shot here, as they say in racing parlance. Although, as I think noble Lords know, I am a very keen supporter of British aviation in all its forms, and I would welcome the fact that the Nimrod should be the early warning aeroplane chosen, I would put this idea to the noble Lord. If by chance the Nimrod was not to be gone ahead with, and as a result NATO agree to buy Boeing AWACs, I believe that our share of this is not inconsiderable; it will be about 18 per cent. of a very large total, and I believe the figure quoted is round about £260 million. If AWACs Boeings were bought for NATO, there is a vast amount of work and employment in refurbishing these aircraft. I was going to humbly suggest that possibly this work could go to Hawker Siddeley instead of BAC; and BAC could then build another 10 or 15 Concordes.

My Lords, you may look at me as if I have gone mad. My idea would be that if NATO wants Boeings we pay for the Boeings with Concordes instead of money. Let us go back to the days of barter. Let the United States Government have the equivalent value in Concorde and let them sort out the New York Port Authority. Let them lease the Concordes to Pan American, TWA, Braniff, National, and let President Carter have one for his shuttle diplomacy. I mentioned this the other day to the Secretary of State for Defence. He was not very keen on it, but I give it to your Lordships for consideration, to mull over.

I come to the trade figures again. In 1976, I believe that we exported £2,448.8 million worth of goods to the United States and in turn we received £3,044.3 million. Therefore, I reckon that this figure is very nearly £600 million in our favour. Alas! I have not been able to ascertain the exact figures from France, but I gather that they are very much in the same proportion and therefore favourable to France. May I suggest that perhaps we lessen our mutual trade with the United States and buy whatever remaining items we need elsewhere in the world.

It may be of interest to noble Lords who have not seen the tape that about an hour ago the British Parliamentary Concorde Group wrote to the Secretary of State for Trade asking him to withdraw air traffic rights between Britain and New York. They are also urging their French counterparts to do the same. My original Question on 20th January 1976 was: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the event of Concorde being refused landing rights in New York and Washington as a result of the current Federal Government inquiry, they will, in concert with the French Government, take steps to restrict in a similar manner the operations of Pan Am and TWA at Paris and London Airports. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said: My Lords, we had a fair hearing in Washington and put forward a strong case. I do not therefore expect the decision to go against Concorde's entry into the United States."—[Official Report, 20/1/76; cols. 349–350.] That is the present situation.

I turn to my alternative to New York. Let British Airways open up the routes through the Pacific to Japan and Australia. In the next few weeks British Airways will have five Concordes and nowhere for most of them to go. Let the rest of the world see Concorde. If British Airways says that there are range problems, let BAC carry out the modifications which will improve the range and payload, because they are not that expensive. Noble Lords may well find that in a short while if New York did not have Concorde it would be begging us to come. If the decision goes against us on 10th March, will the Government please consider my worldwide suggestion? I look forward to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, what counter-proposals Her Majesty's Government have, because otherwise I fear that we shall be back to square one when I asked the same Question in your Lordships' House in January last year. Once before I said: Let us use the mailed fist in the velvet glove. I suggest that we take the gloves off and use the mailed fist.

6.44 p.m.

Lord BOYD-CARPENTER

My Lords, as my release from the inhibitions which the shade of the first Viscount Addison imposed on the holders of public appointments is less than 48 hours old, I have an embarrassing feeling almost of quasi-virginity on rising to address your Lord-ships' House. However, during my own period of enforced silence on this subject I have greatly admired the determination and pertinacity with which the noble Earl has pursued, in this House and elsewhere, the important cause of the proper exploitation of this supreme example of Anglo-French technology. I share his enthusiasm. Perhaps I am bound to do so because in one way or another I have been very closely connected with this aircraft since its inception.

I was, indeed, a member of the Cabinet which in 1962 approved the original proposal and I think, with the possible exception of the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, I am the only person in this House today who shares that responsibility. As I am a rule-abiding person, I cannot tell your Lordships the cost of that development, but I have had the experience of being chairman of the Public Accounts Committee in another place for six years and have dealt with the costs of this aircraft. More recently I have been associated with its coming into service, and 15 months ago I had the great privilege of handing its certificate of airworthiness to that very great man, Sir George Edwards, to whom this country owes such an enormous debt.

The important point in this issue is that the route, London to New York—or, of course, Paris to New York—is the route for which this aircraft was designed. It is the route for which this aircraft is, if I may use the expression, "a natural". It is the right stage length and it is a route that has sufficient traffics of the high-powered, high-calibre type of passenger whom this aircraft is designed to carry. It is not too much to say that many of us hold the view that its ultimate success or failure depends on its being able to operate on this route. However, I hope that we shall not allow the strong feelings which I have, and which many noble Lords and others outside have, on this issue to push us into either of two mistakes.

It would be a mistake to make this a cause of anti-Americanism. I happen to share the great doctrine which Sir Winston Churchill put forward to the effect that it was upon Anglo-American friendship that the survival of the civilised world depends. Our friendship with the United States is too deep and too important to be affected by this. Nor would it be right to criticise the aviation authorities of the United States. On the contrary, the FAA has gone, as the Americans might themselves phrase it, beyond the line of duty in being helpful over the introduction of Concorde. It has helped enormously on the technical side, in the provision of proper air traffic controlled routes and has, indeed, made available the only international airport that it owns and operates, that of Dulles outside Washington. It certainly is not to blame.

The responsibility rests firmly on the political Luddites of the State of New York, with those of the State of New Jersey trotting along behind them, as they apparently so often do. The indefensible nature of the attitude which those two States, which control the New York Port Authority, have adopted can be demonstrated by the massive and fair decision which the former American Secretary of Transportation, Mr. Secretary Coleman, published a year ago. Your Lordships will recall that Mr. Secretary Coleman held a long public inquiry into Concorde. At the end of the day he delivered an intellectually impressive, fair and well-reasoned statement—such as one would expect from a lawyer and statesman of his calibre. I want to quote two extracts. On pages 13 and 19 he fairly states that he accepts the judgment of the administrator of the FAA that Concorde is fully up to United States safety standards. On page 58 on the noise issue he says that it would only make a marginally incremental impact at JFK, which are the initials used in the United States for Kennedy Airport. There, the highest responsible authority at the time in the United States has come out quite plainly that, both on safety and on noise, Concorde is acceptable.

What then should Her Majesty's Government do? This, of course, is a matter for them and I can only make a suggestion. As the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, knows, discussions are taking place at present with the American aviation authorities on the renewal of the Bermuda Agreement—the air service agreement operating between the two countries. It would seem reasonable in those discussions to suggest to the Americans that if they are unable or unwilling—whichever it may be—to implement the existing agreement, it would be a waste of time to negotiate a further one with them. If they say that they are unable to do so, then they are unable to discharge the international obligations of the United States, which is an absurdity. If my dog bites the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, it would not be a sufficient defence on my part that I could not control or manage the dog. It is for the United States authorities to exert their authority as the body responsible for the international relations of the United States. In these same negotiations they are seeking the continuation of privileges very valuable to United States' aviation. I need only refer to the so-called fifth freedom rights through London—and they exercise them also through Paris—which are of great value to United States' aviation.

I hope that these discussions will come to a fruitful conclusion, but I suggest to Her Majesty's Government that it would be artificial and foolish to exclude from discussion during these negotiations an issue which involves the implementation by the United States of her current international obligations. I cannot help but think that, given the basic fair-mindedness of the American people and public, given the facts on the vital issues of safety and of noise, and that their own former Secretary for Transportation has come down in Concorde's favour, a firm line by Her Majesty's Government in standing on the rights of the United Kingdom might well be fruitful.

I share the noble Earl's doubts about plunging into litigation in the United States. The possibilities of delay in the United States legal system are absolutely unlimited. I cannot help but feel that if we leave it to that, the aircraft will probably be obsolete before the proceedings have reached their final determination on the seventh or eighth appeal to the final court. This is an international obligation. This is a matter of great importance to ourselves and our French friends. I beg the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, to take heed of these considerations. I do not ask him to say much tonight. I know enough of international negotiations to know that it is sometimes unwise to disclose the line one is going to take in advance and in public. However, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will be firm to the point of obstinacy in pursuing the exercise of our rights to develop an aircraft which is a great triumph of our technology and in which, as the noble Earl reminded us, many hundreds of millions of pounds of British taxpayers' money have been sunk and on whose continued construction and success the work of many skilled men absolutely depends.

6.53 p.m.

Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY

My Lords, I know that I deprecate as much as any of your Lordships the tendency to turn Unstarred Questions into a mini-debate. My excuse for speaking tonight is that I was so provoked by, I think, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull—if it was not him, I beg his pardon—who said the other day, "I am sure that all noble Lords in this House feel the same way on this subject." Well, my Lords, they do not. There are quite a number of us who feel in a very different way, and since, by our silence, it is apparently being accepted that we do not exist, I think it is right that the other point of view should be put.

I hope that the answer that the Government will give is that they are going to do absolutely nothing about this. It is doubtful indeed—in fact, I think it is more than doubtful—whether there are any treaty rights to enforce. Noble Lords will be well aware that the whole matter depends on the question as to whether at a given time supersonic aircraft produce the same amount of noise and the same amount of trouble, the same aggravation, as subsonic aircraft. Mr. Kaufman obviously thought when he gave evidence to that effect in Washington, that "at that time" referred to 1962, when the agreement was made. It has now been conclusively proved by reference to the IATA bulletin that it did not; it referred to the time when supersonic aircraft were brought in. Therefore it is very doubtful whether we can rely on that agreement.

It is quite certain that we are debarred from doing so, because Mr. Kaufman said on the same occasion: No international agreement will be violated if our case was turned down. I think what he said then with reference to the Secretary for Transport must also be true for any action taken by the Port of New York Authority.

Even if they were in a position to do anything legally or morally, which I do not think they are, I do not believe that they should. Concorde is a very noisy brute. However much you juggle with it, the noise is intolerable. We obviously differ as to the reliability, if I may put it that way—and I mean no aspersion by that—of the figures which the noble Earl gave in his speech. I have it on good authority that the figures and quotations were compiled from a list which did not include the Concorde figures, and therefore they are misleading. Maybe the Minister will be in a position to answer that point later. If not, I suggest that we put down a Question for Written Answer and get the facts, because obviously this is important.

Concorde is a noisy brute. It so happened that I was being interviewed just before the beginning of this debate by a young lady in the Peers' guest room about something completely different—the honesty of politicians. I said that I had to speak in this debate. She said, "What about?" I said, "Concorde". She said, "What are you going to say?" I said, "I think I am going to be the only person against it". She said, "Thank God! I live at Hampton Court, and we have it". I said, "Well, tell me what it is really like". She is not a member of any pressure group, she just lives there; but she said, "It is terrible. You cannot do anything when it passes. The baby wakes up. You cannot hear yourself on the telephone, even if your telephone is in the middle of the house". I said, "Is it really worse than other aeroplanes?" She said, "Much worse. It is terrible".

We can juggle the evidence, I suppose; we can produce evidence against each other for as long as we like. I think it is unarguable that it is a very noisy brute. What is more, it eats fuel and it burns money. It can never fly at a profit, and it should be scrapped. Actually it is a beautiful machine, so maybe we ought to put it in public parks as good modern sculpture, but it is no use for anything else. We are told that the Americans may be merely waiting until Concorde collapses to build their own supersonic aircraft. It may be true. If they are fools enough to do so—I hope that they are not—then let them do so, and let us stop them landing their supersonic planes here until they have decent and controllable noise levels; and the expense of course in that case is theirs and not ours.

We are told that the spin-off from technology is very valuable. Well, for £1,200 million you can get a great many pounds worth of spin-off. It is £650 million, is it not? £1,300 million altogether for Europe. I am a good European, so I think in European terms. We are told that we must help it and keep it because of employment. No one can rightly contemplate great unemployment or causing it. But for how long must we go on before we learn that you do not in the long run improve employment or the economy, or get anything right, if you pay people a lot of money to dig a hole in the ground and fill it up again, particularly if while they are doing it they are kept warm by burning £5 notes in valuable petrol, which is what this all boils down to.

What we have to do is to get the economy and the employment in this country at the right level, making things that people want and need, instead of making what they do not want and then propose to swap them for weapons and systems which I suspect we do not want ourselves.

We are told that Mark II may be better because Mark IIs are always better than Mark Is, and we cannot have Mark II until we have had Mark I. That may be so. But this is a crazy world. We land men on the moon and build supersonic aircraft, but we cannot even house the homeless in our own country, let alone deal with such matters as the slums of Calcutta and India. Technology has become our master rather than our servant. Indeed, I am glad to say that through the inexorable nature of the progress that we are making in our expenditure of fuel and resources on these useless objects, the time has come to call a halt. Captain Ludd was a very much misunderstood man. I hope the Minister will do absolutely nothing to see that Concorde goes where it is not wanted, and, if he does, I hope the Americans take not a bit of notice.

7 p.m.

Lord ORR-EWING

My Lords, I should be delighted to deal with every point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, but if I did I should be venturing far beyond the patience of noble Lords in a short debate on a Starred Question. My only regret is that while the noble Lord may not have many allies in this House, he has many in the media and I strongly suspect that tomorrow morning any publicity given to this debate will be about almost exactly what he said with nothing about the constructive points which so many others have contributed.

Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY

I hope so, my Lords.

Lord ORR-EWING

Very well, my Lords; but there is another view. In any event, one always gets more publicity if one kicks the ball into one's own goal than if one kicks it into the opponent's; perhaps we could put a star against the noble Lord's speech to signify just that.

I wish to deal with two points tonight. First, I think there is now ground for much stronger coercion on the United States Government to help to honour the international treaty obligations which they have undertaken, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter pointed out. He speaks with tremendous authority on this subject and I endorse everything he said, and I have a few other suggestions to make. As a secondary point, I wish to draw attention to the feeling I have that some people in British Airways are not out to make a real financial success of Concorde; they do not seem to have the same dedication shown by Air France and the French Government.

At present the United Kingdom and the United States are renegotiating the Bermuda Agreement, and this is not a simple matter. The basic treaty as it stands is that there should be two United States airlines on the North Atlantic route, Pan-Am and TWA, and two British airlines, which were originally British Airways and British Caledonian; then the licence was withdrawn and British Caledonian fell out, and a great deal of negotiation is going on. Of course the equation is further complicated in view of the judgment about Laker Airways, as to whether they will come in and take the second one.

Bermuda does not concern itself with the types of aircraft; the treaty does not say whether they are supersonic or non-supersonic. That is a matter for other people and not for the Bermuda Agreement. At the moment the Bermuda Agreement is so complicated with so many different factors that it has not proved to be totally effective, as Lord Boyd-Carpenter pointed out. What is the point in tying up the time of a great many people in negotiation when a Port Authority can nullify anything signed in an international agreement? I urge that these negotiations be put on one side until the matter of Concorde and of traffic in and out of New York is clarified.

The United States Federal Aviation Authority draws up regulations. Under Part 36 of its regulations it lays down noise regulations that currently apply to aircraft which were first certificated after a certain date. They do not apply therefore to Concorde, to the VC10s or to the noisy 707s. Thus, it is not on a question of environmental noise that that was cleared by Secretary of Transport Coleman in his report. Experience from the noise point of view at Dulles suggests—and it is endorsed also from London Airport—that the noise is nothing like as great as the public were led to expect and that it really is not objectionable. I have travelled in Concorde, I have been underneath Concorde and I have had a transatlantic trip in the aircraft, and I can say nothing but good about the passenger appeal of the aircraft.

Let us be honest. I suspect that the New York Port Authority's pressure comes from a whole host of lobbies. Of course there are the environmentalists, but I have a feeling that at least two fingers in the pie are Pan-Am and TWA, and a third could well be that the United States aircraft constructors are vitally interested in the matter. One has only to look at recent history to see how they have been able to press their case in all parts of the world and the methods they have used to realise their extremely commercial and competitive spirit. It is only when they are going to be hurt in competition for sales and traffic that they become most difficult and most voracious. Here there are certainly pressure groups operating and it seems surprising that these pressure groups, through the New York Port Authority, can actually cause the United States to break an international treaty which was drawn up in good faith between our two countries.

If an announcement on 10th March is favourable and Concorde is allowed to go into New York, then many thousands, perhaps millions, of people in this country and France will be thankful. Honour will have prevailed because an international treaty will have been complied with. I urge the Government to take two steps. First, as I suggested earlier, they should suspend the Bermuda negotiations until the matter is clear—until it is shown that international agreements can be honoured by the United States and not frustrated by a Port Authority. Secondly, should we perhaps not consider the landing rights in this country for Pan-Am and TWA?

Consider the pressure on London Airport. I was there this evening and I am pleased to say that I arrived on time, but as one watches the stream of aircraft coming in and leaving one realises now that we do not have a third London Airport and the degree of traffic intensity which is building up there. I suggest that it would make sense, at least for a while, if those two airlines used Gatwick. There are those who would go further and suggest that they use Prestwick. I would not go as far as that; the Scot. Nats. would no doubt benefit from such a suggestion. At any rate, I suggest that perhaps those two airlines should use Gatwick, especially during the summer, when there is such a great pressure of traffic. It is one of our accredited international London airports and there would be no hardship for them to use Gatwick; many of us have used it on many occasions. I suggest that a diversion of that sort would be quicker and far more effective than a long-drawn-out legal battle, which could be spun out until the cows come home and Concorde is totally redundant and out of date. Incidentally, it might be rather cheaper, too.

Are British Airways poised to take advantage if we obtain the honourable and right solution? In addition to the London—Washington route and the London—New York route there may be opened up very soon—if, as I hope, the Government are pressing this matter—the London—Australia route. I believe it would be of tremendous benefit to all of us who have to go to the Far East and Australia on business. My fear is that, if this comes about, British Airways will not be poised to take advantage of it.

For two decades there has been a strong lobby in what was then BOAC and what is now British Airways, which has championed the purchase of United States rather than British aircraft. Perhaps the classic case was the VC.10, when the Government of the day—they were a Conservative Government—were urged to cancel the VC.l0s, break them up and allow them to buy 707s. In the end of course the airline were shown to have got the equation wrong. It turned out that the VC.10 was far more attractive to the travelling public and many of my American friends chose, and still do when they have an opportunity, to travel by super VC.10 rather than by other aircraft across the Atlantic. The load factor was so great—I think it was 84 per cent. in one year against the low 60's per cent. for the American equivalent—that the costing estimates were totally incorrect and vast profits, not losses, were made by British Airways from the operation of the VC.10. I believe that when the true story of that aircraft comes to be written, and the various pressures which led to the sawing up of four aircraft which were partially built at a cost to the taxpayers indirectly of about £2 million, it will make rather sad reading.

I seem to detect these pro- and anti-Concorde lobbies in different groups within British Airways. At the end of 1973 BOAC were pressing the then Minister, who was Mr. Michael Heseltine, for a subsidy to operate Concorde; and, I think rightly, he resisted. When Mr. Wedgwood Benn took over that responsibility within a few weeks he circulated a memorandum, which I think was not very fully thought out at ministerial level, forecasting from his advisers that there would be a substantial operating loss on Concorde. British Airways immediately "upped" the figure and suggested that the loss would be even greater.

I believe that British Airways are due to publish their results in three months' time in June 1977 and that they may be tempted again to show that the operating loss on Concorde is very serious, and therefore not only justify those who have been against Concorde but all those who asked for a subsidy earlier on. But, if that happens, it will not be a true judgment of Concorde, because at present British Airways are operating Concorde for something like 1½ hours a day. It is not conceivably possible for any aircraft, let alone a sophisticated supersonic aircraft, to be economically viably operated for 1½ hours a day. I would comment, though I know there are other reasons, that Air France manage to operate their Concordes at many times that figure each day.

So I hope that when British Airways publish their figures they will not be another group to knock Concorde, because I believe that it is not a true representation of how good and how commercially advantageous that aircraft can be when we clear operations for some more routes. I know that British Airways have had difficulties in training their crews, and I am told that, if we are cleared to Australia tomorrow, it may be many months and perhaps even years before British Airways can take advantage of opening that route. It would be very sad, after we have been so patient, after we have negotiated and after we have been as friendly and co-operative as possible with the U.S.A., if we were not able to grasp the opportunities that this fine aircraft can give and the potential for further development of this aircraft which I believe would be of tremendous benefit to all those associated with and working in the aerospace industry.

7.12 p.m.

Earl GREY

My Lords, there have been continual arguments and disagreements over the introduction of Concorde. Many of the arguments are concerned with the environment. This problem has affected us for many years and, unfortunately, will do so for many more, especially in other fields such as pollution and the dumping of highly dangerous chemicals in the sea. However, the fact is that Concorde has been built and is now in service. Over £700 million has been spent on its development and Concorde looks as though it is here to stay. Britain has often led the world in the air industry in both commercial and military uses—an achievement we should be proud of. Concorde is proving its success in design and service on the routes which it is at present operating. Technically, it has given excellent reliability and has been integrated into existing traffic without any hitches. British Airways set a number of objectives in order to make Concorde a reliable proposition. Among those objectives is a quest for the right route pattern, maximum punctuality and reliability, and the right departure and arrival times for the target business market.

The Concorde enterprise is running at a loss but that is due to the fact that the aircraft is doing about one hour's work a day when, to break even, it must do at least 7½ hours a day—about the same as the 747 or any other large passenger jet in operation. New York is the business centre of the Western world and time is money. I believe that New York will need Concorde as London does, and that once it is in operation the advantages will be greatly appreciated. The Washington run has been a big success. British Airways have already sold 90 per cent. of the available seats. Passengers using this route prefer Concorde despite the fact that they may have to transfer at both ends of the journey. The London/Bahrein route is also doing better than British Airways expected, and Philippine Airlines and others are interested if they are able to operate in and out of London. If the London/Australia route is opened up, the time will be cut from 24 to 13 hours.

With reference to the noise factor, British Airways are continually looking into this problem and the noise measured in Washington has been within the levels predicted by the Coleman decision. If the load factor can be above 60 per cent., British Airways and Air France are confident that Concorde can make money. Since World War II, British Airways have had some notable firsts. Britain led with the Comet in 1952, and in 1957 was first with the long-range jet/prop airliner, the Britannia. Now Britain, with France, will, if Concorde is sold to the major airlines, lead the world in the supersonic field.

7.16 p.m.

The Earl of KINNOULL

My Lords, I rise, as others have done, to support the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley. I am sure that the House owes the noble Earl a great debt for the persistent, well-informed and enthusiastic questions that he always asks on Concorde. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, flattered me in saying that I was the reason for his interruption. I must say that I have never before heard such a moving and eloquent speech by the noble Lord based on such uninformed information. If someone were rude enough to say to me that the noble Lord had been talking rubbish, I should find it very difficult to disagree with that person. The noble Lord desscribed Concorde as a noisy brute, thirsty and useless. What a tribute to the thousands of French and British people who have worked for something like 15 years on the development and production of Concorde so that now we see it flying! What a tribute to what many of us regard as a national pride and what we consider to be the envy of the world!

Despite the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and his merry band of pollutionists; despite their concentration of wrath upon Concorde—without a bleep against the 200 flights a day by supersonic military aircraft across America—some might say that they should concentrate much more on the safeguarding of the sea from the all too frequent oil tanker collisions. I am sure that would receive far greater support than the argument that the pollutionists always put forward against Concorde.

Most of us feel that Concorde stands for a supreme achievement, for national pride and, above all, for the inventiveness and skill of the aircraft industries of Britain and France. It also stands for a massive cost of taxpayers' money. On the very threshold of success, are we to stand by and, as the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, has said, allow this great achievement to wither away? Are we to allow the possibility of the American industry picking up the pieces in a few years' time? I believe that it would be national madness not to support those who strive to see the Concorde service straddling the world.

Undoubtedly, New York is a vital step in the Concorde route. We have now seen eight months for the New York Port Authority to study the evidence, which, I understand, has been gained entirely from the Washington experience. I believe that it would be helfpul if the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, could tell us tonight what he knows about the Washington experience. Does it point to a massive disruption beyond the reasonable sufferings that any person who works or lives close to an airport must expect? Will the two to four Concorde flights a day that are due to enter Kennedy Airport, if they are allowed, wreck the delicate peacefulness that now surrounds Kennedy Airport? Of course they will not. This delay and procrastination by the New York Port Authority has a distinctly hollow ring and I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, for all his genuine size, did not rattle a bit tonight as well.

I hope, and I am sure that our Government and the French Government hope, that on 10th March reason will prevail. It will be a very unhappy case indeed if British Airways and Air France have to resort to the courts. But whatever happens, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, will emphasise tonight the Government's total determination to support Concorde and its entry on to the world airline routes.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, always comes briefed to the eyebrows on any subject for which he has to answer, and I hope that he will not mind my stepping a little outside the threshold of the Kennedy Airport runways to ask a few questions on Concorde. What alternative, for instance, have British Airways been pursuing in the other East coast airports of America? Are British Airways pursuing actively enough and urgently enough the question of landing rights in Canada?

Perhaps the most important point that I should like to put to the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, is the very important question about improving the operational characteristics of Concorde. I understand that in one or two areas the limitations are of a marginal character and could be overcome by relatively inexpensive modifications. Can the noble Lord say tonight what is being done to increase, for instance, the thrust of the present engines? Is it not true that for a quite limited expenditure improvements could be made to the trailing edges of the wing, and a modification to the leading edge of the fin? There could also be, I understand, important improvements by detailed changes of the air intake. One estimate is that on a critical sector to Austrialia over 2,000 lbs. extra payload can be gained by this comparatively inexpensive work on the intake. This will mean some extra funding of course, and I should like to ask the noble Lord whether this funding is available.

There is also the possibility of improving the contingency rating on take-off, which would make the aircraft even more attractive in hot temperatures. The funding needed here, I understand, is no more than half a million pounds for retrofit, and even smaller sums for new aircraft. Can we be given an assurance that the aircraft will not be limited in this important operational characteristic which entails such a small funding expenditure?

Lastly, my Lords, I understand that a very considerable improvement could be obtained in both noise and range by a modified wing. If the lift-drag ratio could be improved, then not inconsiderable gains could be made, I understand, on both the noise and the range. I understand that in the region of £60 million is required, and for some reason the French Exchequer would be responsible for the greater part of this sum, if it were agreed to. Can we be given a guarantee that this money will be forthcoming?

All these questions on the modification of Concorde are of particular significance when one realises that the production line at Filton is almost at an end. The modification work to the existing aircraft is now perhaps the only alternative left for the Government to keep the Concorde division together, waiting over this critical period while Concorde goes more fully into service and the potential buyers see the importance of buying Concorde.

7.24 p.m.

Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL

My Lords, having unfortunately missed the opportunity to put my Question earlier this afternoon, for which I owe the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, an apology, I feel that I must intervene briefly to support my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and welcome him back from his enforced vow of silence, which he has fulfilled in such a distinguished and authoritative manner. He has put forward some suggested negotiating counters for the current Bermuda Agreement renegotiation, without having to resort to some of the more extravagant stratagems so robustly advocated by the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley. Of course I cannot resist saying how the Liberals have demonstrated this evening what a wide divergence of opinion is covered by the mantle of their Party label, but I would not want anyone to be under any misapprehension as to on which side we from these Benches will wish to place our support. I can only say to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, in, I hope, the kindest possible way, that he reminds me rather of the old cartoon of the wife and husband arguing, and the wife is saying, "My mind is made up. For goodness sake! don't confuse me with facts."

I admit that if we were about to embark on this project knowing what in fact it has cost, I daresay we would not do it. But the important point is that we have done it; we have spent the money. We have bitten on the bullet that we will probably not recover the investment we have made, and now we have to get on and live with that situation and try to make the best of it. Nothing we can say here will alter that. That is a straight statement of fact.

The noble Earl, Lord Grey, pointed out the fact that we have already spent the money, and a number of noble Lords have said that we need to give the aeroplane an opportunity and a fair test to demonstrate what it can do when it is allowed to do what it was designed to do. A number of noble Lords have also pointed out the effect of the route negotiations on the accounting so far as British Airways are concerned.

So it seems to me that we find ourselves in the rather remarkable position that on the North Atlantic routes British Airways are making the running at both ends of the market. On the one hand, we have the supersonic service; on the other, we have the Laker Skytrain for which we are now, I hope, committed to fight. So I hope that the noble Lord will be able to tell us, without being carried away by any misplaced jingoism over extravagance, that the Government will pull no punches in supporting the negotiations for the proper and the appropriate rights for both Concorde and the Laker Skytrain.

7.28 p.m.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM

My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, and to other noble Lords who have spoken, for the concern they have expressed about the delay to Concorde serving New York. I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, in expressing my pleasure upon hearing the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, speaking as a free man. I am looking forward both to agreeing with him and disagreeing with him in the future.

I and Her Majesty's Government fully share the concern expressed by noble Lords tonight. First, I should like to explain the position about President Carter's statement. He has stated clearly that he supports the proposal for the 16-month trial of Concorde on the terms originally proposed by former Secretary Coleman. The President has also said that he sees this as a continuing process involving his Government and the Governments of the United Kingdom and France, which should be allowed to proceed. That is a firm and positive statement. I believe that the authorities in New York will want to give all due weight to such a statement from their President. But the President's statement has also pointed out that he cannot direct the Port of New York Authority or the Governor of the State of New York to reach a particular decision on Concorde. This is clearly one of the rights of a federal system.

The essential difficulty with which we are faced is that the United States Government have said one thing but the New York authorities have still to allow that decision to be put into effect. I wish to make it absolutely clear that the Government regard this as a matter of the greatest possible concern. The Government are now carefully considering President Carter's statement, and are in close touch with the French Government on this matter. But the immediate issue is when the Port of New York Authority will take their decision, and what that decision will be. The House can be assured that we are taking all the steps open to us—"all" is a big word—to persuade the Port Authority to take the right decision.

I understand that the Port of New York Authority are due to consider Concorde at their next meeting on the 10th March. They have announced that they intend to do so, and I believe that we and the French have every right to expect a decision to be taken at long last at that meeting on the 10th March. But the House will be aware that the Prime Minister will be in Washington on that day holding his first meeting with President Carter. I have no doubt that he will be considering whether to speak to the President about Concorde if the Port Authority's decision that day is not fully satisfactory, or if it is postponed yet again. I am sure that we can leave it to him to take whatever action seems appropriate at the time.

I must emphasise that, in the Government's view, the Port Authority can only take a decision to allow Concorde in. The main reasons for this are as follows. First, as I have said, President Carter himself has made it clear that he considers the Concorde trial at Kennedy should be allowed to start. Second, the New York authorities have all the information they need; and I shall return to this point in a moment. Third, as I shall also explain, it is being demonstrated by measurements of Concorde during its operations to Washington that our predictions on Concorde noise are correct. Fourth, New York has a lot to gain from Concorde services to Europe, and I shall be referring to some of the many organisations in New York who have announced their support for Concorde. Fifth, in addition, there would be strong resentment in this country and in France if New York was to continue to deny access to Concorde. It would be difficult to explain to the many thousands who have contributed their skill and labour to this aircraft, and to all those who want to see this product of British and French technology succeed, how even a limited trial period could not be tried. The unfairness of such an action is not what we expect from our friends in the United States.

It has often been pointed out that New York is the key to the success of the Concorde project. Noble Lords do not need to be reminded that this is so. Not only is it the most important route on which British Airways and Air France want to operate Concorde; it is also the key to the future exploitation of Concorde by other airlines. Although I hope that Concordes will be used by airlines that do not operate to New York, it must be remembered that some of the airlines interested in the aircraft will want to use it on the New York route. Since noble Lords have asked about the position on sales, I can say that the manufacturers, in conjunction with the two Governments, are continuing their efforts to find customers for the five unsold Concordes. Proposals, mainly for lease, have been put to a number of interested airlines, and arrangements for further discussions with them are in hand, but the House will obviously not expect me to discuss the position reached in these negotiations. I have referred to leasing. I should explain that the policy issues involved in various forms of leasing are currently being examined by the British and French Governments.

To return to New York, the House may not be aware of the volume of support for Concorde that has already been expressed in New York. Many important organisations representing labour, the business world and many other interests have come out in favour of the aircraft. I wish to mention in particular the New York Labor Council, representing more than 1 million members. Other bodies are the Association for a Better New York and the New York Chamber of Commerce and Industry. I must also mention the Long Island Association for Commerce and Industry, a very significant body to have on our side in view of the situation of Kennedy Airport in Long Island and the feelings of communities there about aircraft noise. The common theme expressed by these organisations is that New York needs the Concorde services to Europe and will benefit from them, and that the aircraft should be given a trial.

Let me now turn to the British Government's position. I want to make clear three points, and they are: first, whatever noble Lords may say, we have treaty rights that entitle British Airways to operate Concorde to New York; second, the air service agreements between the United States and Britain and France, which lay down what requirements airlines and aircraft must fulfil before they are allowed to operate, have been complied with completely; and, third, the Port of New York Authority do not have the powers to prevent British Airways Concordes being operated into New York under our treaty rights.

It is worth recalling the exceptional efforts that we and the French have put into demonstrating to the United States, both to the Government and to the people, that Concorde will really not cause damage, and that it should be allowed in. We have gone to considerable lengths to make sure that all those in the United States concerned about their environment, and in particular those living close to Kennedy and to the Washington airport, understand that Concorde will really have a negligible effect on them. The major step in this direction was to secure the decision from the then Secretary for Transportation, Mr. Coleman, that Concorde services to both New York and Washington should be allowed for 16-month trial periods. This was the outcome of one of the most extensive investigations of the possible effect on the environment of a federal decision that has ever been carried out in the United States. The Governments of Britain and France, the Concorde manufacturers and the airlines, complied fully with the requirements of United States law in this regard, although they made it clear at the outset that their co-operation was without prejudice to their treaty rights. Since the 24th May 1976, Concorde has been operating to Washington; it has been flying full on most occasions and the noise it has produced has been demonstrated by the United States authorities themselves to be within the predictions that we made. These predictions, on which Mr. Coleman based his decision, have now been confirmed by nine months' actual experience. I hope that that meets the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull.

I should in passing mention the Press articles referred to in the debate that have appeared in New York and London and are based on a report by our own Civil Aviation Authority on the first eight months of Concorde operations at Heathrow. When I say "in the debate", of course the debate is going on outside this House as well as within it. These articles were highly misleading, and I am glad to say that the New York Post has already published another report to put the record straight. In fact, as the Civil Aviation Authority report itself shows, there have been fewer than four complaints each time Concorde has taken off or landed at Heathrow, and the reaction to Concorde there has been well below the forecasts made by its critics. It is quite untrue to allege that Concorde is by far the noisiest aircraft at Heathrow. There have been many occasions, as noble Lords have pointed out, when other aircraft have been noisier.

Since Mr. Coleman's decision, we have taken care that the Port of New York Authority have been given all the information that they want. We have co-operated in all the investigations carried out in the United States. Here and in France the New York authorities have been given all the data and facilities for which they have asked. We have waited patiently for several months following the end of this six-month period over which they announced last March that they wanted to assess Concorde before taking their decision. We have also designed and demonstrated a take-off procedure to ensure that Concorde will comply with the Kennedy noise limits. This procedure was fully tested at Casablanca in December 1974, and satisfied the safety authorities in the United States as well as in Britain and France. A full report was presented to New York. They had been invited to take part in these trials themselves, but did not do so.

My conclusion, with which I am sure the House will agree, is that the validity of our data on Concorde, and hence the environmental predictions for New York on which the trial period was recommended, have been fully confirmed. The Government are confident that Concorde will comply with the Kennedy noise limits as they are currently applied to other aircraft. For these reasons, I am convinced that the only fair decision for New York to take is to let Concorde start its trial there and thus demonstrate that it will have little impact on local people.

We therefore look to the port authority to take this decision on 10th March so that the airlines can get down to their arrangements for an early start of commercial services. But if the decision on 10th March is negative, or if it is postponed yet again, I must make it clear that we will regard it as quite unjustifiable and as a serious step. The airlines will have to press ahead with their action in the courts to challenge the port authority's powers to take such a decision. The court hearing of this suit has already been postponed three times so that the port authority would have the further time that they had asked to complete their assessment of all the data. We have gone along with yet another postponement so that the decision can be taken on 10th March. It was right to agree to another postponement in view of the firm statement by President Carter that New York should allow Concorde in. But we cannot be patient indefinitely and we have decided, in agreement with our French friends, that the court hearing cannot be postponed any longer. I understand that it has now been fixed for mid-March.

But, my Lords, the legal path is not the best way in which to resolve this question. That is the view of noble Lords who have spoken tonight. We have done everything reasonable—perhaps more—to enable New York to reach their own decision without having to provoke an argument in the courts or between Governments. This is a matter which should be decided on its merits and I hope I have demonstrated that the merits of the case are all in favour of allowing Concorde to operate. If, nevertheless, New York turns Concorde down, we should have to consider very carefully all the implications for us. Clearly, the delay is costing the airlines a good deal of money. I have already pointed out that it is also seriously damaging to Concorde sales and future prospects. The Government hope very strongly that such unnecessary damage to our interest and to Anglo/American relations can be avoided. That is the view of Her Majesty's Government on the subject. I hope that it is clear cut and not fudged.

May I make one final point in answer to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull? I cannot answer all his questions, but if he will look up an Answer that I gave to a Starred Question about a month ago, he will find that money has been approved for the improvement of the operational characteristics of Concorde both in service and in production, and that these improvements are going ahead.

Lord ORR-EWING

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, could he specially report to higher authority the point made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, with all his knowledge, about suspending the Bermuda negotiations until this matter has been clarified? There is no merit in going on with it until this particular point is resolved.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM

My Lords, my right honourable friend will obviously pay attention to informed opinion such as that expressed by the noble Lord, with his years of responsibility in this matter.