TEES-SIDE AIRPORT (Hansard, 24 January 1967)

§ Mr. Ted Fletcher (Darlington)
I am very pleased to have an opportunity even at this early hour of the morning to discuss a matter of vital importance to all those who are concerned with establishing good communications between Tees-side and other conurbations in this country and throughout the world. Teesside airport is situated about four miles from my constituency. It is, in fact, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Joseph Slater), who played a creditable part in the initial stages of the development of this civil airport.
The airport is controlled by a joint airport committee representing local authorities in the region. I pay tribute to the efforts of the committee, under the chairmanship of Alderman Boothby of Middlesbrough. It has spent about £400,000 on developing the airport, which will now stand comparison with any of similar size in the country. The technical facilities are modern. Its runways will take jet aircraft. It has recently had new bright and modern terminal buildings erected, and a first-class hotel 1454 has recently been completed at the airport.
In October last year, B.K.S., which operated a scheduled service from Teesside to Heathrow, advised the joint airport committee that it wished to withdraw, and, until the end of the year, the service was operated jointly by B.K.S. and B.E.A. In the meantime, the Air Transport Licensing Board considered applications from B.E.A., British Eagle and Autair International Airways for a licence to operate the service between London and Tees-side in place of B.K.S. At its meeting on 7th December, the Licensing Board decided to grant the licence to Autair International Airways.
I have my own views on the wisdom of that decision, but I recognise that, under the Civil Aviation (Licensing) Regulations, 1964, the parties to the case, that is, B.E.A., British Eagle, the British Railways Board and the Tees-side airport joint committee, have the right to appeal to the Board of Trade against the decision of the A.T.L.B. Until the time for lodging an appeal has expired or, alternatively, until the Board of Trade has determined the appeal, it would not be proper for me to enter into discussion of the merits of the various applications. There will be an appeal in which all parties will have opportunity to state their case before the appeals commissioner. I recognise, therefore, that the Minister could not listen to arguments which would be outside the statutory procedure of appeal.
I shall not discuss the granting of the licence to Autair, but I wish to focus attention on the decision of this company, having been granted the licence, to operate the service from Tees-side to Luton and not Heathrow, which was formerly the terminal of B.K.S. The decision to make Luton the terminal point was not that of the Air Transport Licensing Board. In its evidence to the Board, Autair said that it was prepared to fly into Heathrow provided that it was directed to do so by the Board, but its own preference was for Luton. The licence was not granted for Luton only, and Autair could, if it wished, terminate its London flights at Heathrow. The decision, therefore, rested entirely with the operators.
1455 Let us consider the consequence of this company's decision to use Luton instead of London. Luton is 32 miles from London. Travelling from there to the North London terminal at Swiss Cottage will take at least an hour, and probably considerably more in peak traffic periods. Following that there will be a tube journey from Swiss Cottage into Central London which will take another 15 to 20 minutes. How many passengers will be prepared to make this journey, particularly when British Rail have said that from March of this year trains running from Darlington to London will complete the journey in 3 hours 10 minutes, and at half the cost of air travel?
There is, at least, an element of choice for passengers to London, and the airline can win passengers only if its service is considerably quicker than other forms of transport, but this is not the only aspect of the matter. What about the passenger who wishes to connect at Heathrow with planes for America or Europe? B.K.S. estimate that about one-third of its passengers to Heathrow were inter-line passengers merely changing planes at Heathrow in order to board planes going abroad. This estimate may well be on the low side, because, from a survey taken last September, it seems that 43 per cent. of passengers from Tees-side to London were inter-line passengers making a change at Heathrow. It is difficult to imagine all these passengers opting to fly to Luton and then having to face a journey of perhaps 75 minutes or an hour and a half to get from Luton to Heathrow.
It is important to realise the number of passengers who will be inconvenienced by these new arrangements. It is necessary, if this matter is to be looked at in perspective, to give some idea of the volume of passenger traffic from Teesside. If B.K.S. had not withdrawn its services last October, about 100,000 passengers would have passed through Tees-side. Of these, about three-quarters, that is 75,000 people, travelled to Heathrow. If we take 40 per cent. of the total number of passengers as representing those who want to connect with other planes from London, this means that on the 1966 estimate about 30,000 passengers a year will have to put up with wasted time, frustration, and per- 1456 haps missed flights, as a result of the decision of Autair to terminate its services at Luton.
Even with the limited experience that we have of the service to Luton, it is apparent what is happening. From the 1st to 15th January of this year, that is two weeks, 647 passengers were carried on the Luton run, either to Tees-side or from Tees-side. In the corresponding period of 1966 the number of passengers from and to Heathrow was 1,201. The freight figures are even more alarming. For the two weeks which I have mentioned, in 1966 freight traffic totalled 16,700 kilos, but this year it dropped to 4,460 kilos. These figures are not likely to give any confidence to those who are looking forward to the expansion of the airport, and it is difficult to understand why, in the face of public opinion, the firm has adopted this policy of terminating its London run at Luton.
The explanation is that Autair has a repair depot at Luton. I also understand that the firm has an interest in the North London Air Terminal at Swiss Cottage. Nevertheless, the Air Transport Licensing Board did not grant a license for the convenience of the company but for the convenience of the travelling public. How can the company establish a viable business on Teesside if the climate of hostility is such that it is unable to get passengers?
There is a tremendous outcry against the firm's decision. The North Economic Council and the North-East Development Council have recorded their regret at the decision, as have many of the local authorities in the area, as well as the Airport Joint Committee, chambers of commerce, many businessmen and organisations, many hon. Members who represent the North-East and myself. Scores of letters have been received protesting about this decision.
A Motion signed by practically every hon. Member who represents North-East constituencies may appear on the Notice Paper tomorrow protesting against this decision. What steps has Autair taken to consult public opinion in the matter? What must we do to convince the firm that it is not only in the interest of the North-East as a development area, in the interest of the travelling public and in the long-term interest of the firm 1457 that it should change its decision? What can we do, other than campaign for the withdrawal of the license, so that Autair is left in no doubt that public opinion is overwhelmingly against Luton as the London air terminal? It must be made clear that such a campaign will be mounted unless it has second thoughts on the subject.
I do not want anything I say to be interpreted as being in any way hostile to Autair, particularly since the reports I have received show that it is an efficient company, that its aircraft fly to schedule and that the service which it provides is praiseworthy in every way. The hostility arises from the fact that the firm has made the wrong decision in flying into Luton instead on into London.
What prospect is there of getting the management to change its mind? The managing director of Autair stated in the local Press, speaking about ending the London terminal at Heathrow, that he was prepared to do that …if, in the light of experience…there is an overwhelming demand for Heathrow". The figures I have quoted show that there is certainly not an overwhelming demand for Luton. How will he judge the demand? What "light of experience" does he wish to consider? Will it be judged by the number of people who do not use the new service? If that is the result and if the service to Luton is a flop, as it seems might happen, it will be difficult to prove anything by afterwards switching to Heathrow, since many of the firm's potential customers will have made other arrangements, perhaps travelling by rail to, say, Newcastle or Leeds for some of the journey.
Another factor is that if the firm does not fly into Heathrow it will lose the slot it now has to take aircraft into Heathrow from Tees-side. The slot, between 8 a.m. and 9 a.m., will be allocated to another airline if it is not established quite quickly.
The only conclusion to be drawn, if the service from Tees-side to Luton fails, is that Tees-side does not want a London service. That is the conclusion that might be drawn by the Air Transport Licensing Board. But Tees-side is not being offered a London service. It is being offered a service to a town in Bed- 1458 fordshire, which is 32 miles from London and which, in the estimation of many businessmen, will add two to three hours' travelling time to the journey. It would, therefore, be more sensible for Autair to fly into Heathrow—and then, if there is an overwhelming demand for Luton, it could transfer there, but it is unlikely that such a transfer would need to take place.
Because some of my hon. Friends would like to contribute to this debate, I will restrict my remarks.
There is to be an appeal. If the appeal is to be heard, will the Minister make arrangements for it to be heard as early as possible? We understand from the Press that it may be August before the appeal is heard. We would like reconsideration to be given to the whole question of the licence between Tees-side and London, and we want this matter settled not in the far distant future but as early as possible. Would my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that this will be speeded up and that if applications and appeals are sent in they will be heard at the ealiest possible moment?
I want finally to stress that there is an overwhelming feeling among all sections of the population in and around Tees-side that we are highly dissatisfied with an air service which terminates at Luton. I hope my remarks, and perhaps some others which hon. Members may make tonight, may convince the firm that they are wrong and should have second thoughts about this matter.

§ Mr. Timothy Kitson (Richmond, Yorks)
I rise to support the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. T. Fletcher) in everything he has said this evening. We in the North-East are extremely worried by the decision of Autair to fly into Luton.
I think we have all been approached by many companies in the North-East which are using Tees-side for flying on to the Continent and other parts of the world. Tees-side, which is now a great exporting centre in this country, has tended to develop Tees-side Airport for connection with other overseas flights from Heathrow.
I think many of us are extremely worried by some of the statements made by the Air Transport Licensing Board.
1459 After the decision to allow Autair to fly into Luton they said in a somewhat strange statement that although it takes longer to get from Luton into London, "one can get out of an airplane quicker in Luton." That does not give much satisfaction to anyone flying from Tees-side to London.
They went on to say that if this application had been made for an entirely new service instead of for a replacement for the one formerly operated by B.K.S., it would probably have been refused because of the excellent British Rail services from Darlington. Many of us quite frankly think this is disgraceful because there are a great number of people who are using Tees-side Airport for flights on to the Continent, particularly for holidays and business.
This is one of the great advantages. One can fly from Tees-side and connect at London Airport with a flight to the Continent, which saves all the problems of getting across London with luggage.
I think it is true to say that practically every major firm on Tees-side is objecting to these proposals. I, like the hon. Member for Darlington, have no wish to criticise Autair as a company, but unless—and this is most important for the Minister to realise—they take up their slot at London Airport we may lose the opportunity of flying into Heathrow in future. This would be an extremely unsatisfactory decision for Tees-side Airport, and I hope the Minister can have the appeal heard in the very near future so we can get this problem sorted out.

§ Mr. James Tinn (Cleveland)
I express, very briefly, my complete support for all that has been said so far in the debate, and particularly my gratitude—indeed the gratitude of the whole area—to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher) for initiating the debate.
The ground has been well covered and the case has been excellently argued. I ask the Minister to take whatever steps are open to him—perhaps with the Heathrow scheduling committee—to ensure that this time slot at Heathrow is kept available until the issue is finally determined. It is in the highly desirable 9 a.m. period which other operators are desirous of having. If this one dis- 1460 appears, it might well be that no future air service from Tees-side could satisfactorily operate to Heathrow.
May I also make the point to my hon. Friend that this whole problem illustrates the crying need for a regional airport authority and a regional plan. I hope that this is something that will emerge.

§ The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu)
The House will understand that I have considerable difficulty in replying to this debate, for reasons which I will mention. One point, however, on which I have no difficulty is in fully supporting the statements that my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher) has made about the airport at Middleton St. George. I am new in this job but I know enough to realise that it is a first-class airport. It has first-class runways and hangars, a new terminal building and even an hotel. It has developed extremely well under the very good initiative of the Tees-side authorities. My hon. Friend mentioned the consortium of 11 or 13 local authorities which have got together to develop the airport.
In passing, I would say that this very good airport would be even better if the Tees-side authorities could possibly get together with a similar consortium on Tyneside and work those two airports, not in competition, but in co-operation.
On the substance of the case which has been put by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington, the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Tinn), I regret that I am unable to make any comment, for the obvious reason that there is still the possibility of an appeal from the decision of the Air Transport Licensing Board. For the Board of Trade, therefore, the issue is sub judice.
If an appeal is lodged we shall go through the usual procedure of appointing an independent commissioner, who will then report to the President, and it will be up to my right hon. Friend either to accept or to reject the recommendations of the commissioner. The Board of Trade is, therefore, somewhat in the position of a judge, and it would be most unwise and indelicate of me to make 1461 any comment about either the findings of the Board or of the present decision of Autair to fly into Luton.
I was, however, pressed, very rightly, to do whatever I could in the event of appeal to ensure that the appeal was held quickly. It is necessary to allow a little time before the hearing of the appeal to give the chance to anybody who wants to appear before the commissioner to prepare evidence and to produce new evidence if necessary. It is also necessary to have a little time for the hearing and for the preparation of the report and then consideration of it.
We in the Board of Trade will certainly do whatever we can to make sure that there is no avoidable delay in coming to a decision. It depends, however, not only upon us; it depends upon the appellants preparing their case quickly and present- 1462 ing it. For the Board of Trade, I am most willing to give the undertaking that we shall do whatever we can to get a decision in what is obviously a very important matter.

§ Mr. Tinn
Would the Minister please see what can be done to meet a point which I put to him—to make representations to the Heathrow Committee to ensure that the time slot is kept open?

§ Mr. Mallalieu
I am sorry that I did not deal with that point. I am not absolutely sure whether we have any powers to give any direction. I think that we have not. But I will see that the point is made.