§ The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Anthony Crosland)I will, with permission, make a statement on the Government's proposals for a third London airport.
As the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has consulted local authorities and other bodies about a realignment of the runways of Stansted, and we have now studied all the replies. These raise certain new considerations. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Although realignment would greatly reduce the number of people seriously affected by noise, it would affect many people who had neither the occasion nor the opportunity to object at the original inquiry. Moreover, those consulted have represented that the additional land requirement and provision for expansion to a four runway airport amount to such a radical departure from the earlier proposals as to constitute virtually a new project.
In the light of these considerations, and the continued public concern about the Stansted decision, and the general wel- 668 come given to the proposals in the Town and Country Planning Bill for dealing with cases of this type, the Government have decided to refer to an inquiry which will take place in public, the question of the siting of the third London airport. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] This will be a far wider inquiry than that proposed in the report by the Council on Tribunals. It might take the form of a Planning Inquiry Commission, duly constituted after the Bill has become law, or it might take some other form. We would wish to discuss the exact form of the inquiry with the Opposition, bearing in mind the need to proceed with all reasonable speed. Meanwhile, we shall not proceed with the Special Development Order for Stansted. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
§ Mr. CorfieldWe of course welcome this belated change of heart on the Government's part, but I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he is now adopting a proceeding pressed upon him by this side of the House for many months and that his main reason for not following that in the past has been the urgency of the matter. Can he now tell the House his estimate of the time scale on the need for a third London airport? Although we welcome the offer to discuss the form of the inquiry, can the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that it will be fully comprehensive and, in particular, that he will put in hand at once, if he has not done so already, the necessary origin and destination surveys for both passengers and aircraft on which so much depends?
§ Mr. CroslandIt is still the Government's view that we shall need a third London airport by the middle 1970s. For that reason, it is extremely important to have a form of inquiry which, while being, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, thorough and seen to be objective, will carry through its proceedings with the greatest possible speed. That is why we should like to have consultations with the Opposition. The inquiry to which the hon. Gentleman referred at the end of his supplementary question will be pursued.
§ Mr. NewensIs my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread approval which his decision will meet from people of all parties, not only in the Stansted area but 669 throughout the country, particularly because right hon. and hon. Members opposite bear an equal share of responsibility for the ill-fated decision when they were in government? Would my right hon. Friend confirm that alternative sites will be considered by the inquiry?
§ Mr. CroslandI can confirm that the inquiry, whatever its exact form, will be free to consider any alternative site it chooses, although no doubt, in practice, it will concentrate its attention on the relatively limited number of sites which have emerged in the last ten years or so of public discussion. It is worth bearing in mind that the original decision to choose Stansted was announced by Mr. Julian Amery in the White Paper of 1964.
§ Mr. St. John-StevasWould the President of the Board of Trade join me in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk), whose pertinacity on this question has contributed so much to this extremely happy result?
§ Mr. CroslandThe hon. Gentleman shows a certain party prejudice in singling out his hon. Friend and not hon. Friends of mine whom I could single out. The Government have taken this decision in response, not merely to the very legitimate pressure of the House, but to the clear signs, both locally and nationally, which have emerged over the last few months that public anxiety and debate about the decision still continues. In the light of that, it seemed right to the Government to take what is a serious risk of delay in order to satisfy public opinion that the right decision is taken and that the matter has been examined objectively.
§ Mr. ShinwellMay I, speaking as a loyal and devoted supporter of Her Majesty's Government, ask my right hon. Friend whether before the original decision about Stansted airport was reached there was a full and exhaustive inquiry into all the implications and possible complications? If the Government have now decided to change their mind on what they regard as a vital matter, is there not some justification for the complaint of many of my hon. Friends that the Government are not resilient enough to change their mind on perhaps 670 a less minor and less expensive matter like prescription charges?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We must keep to Stansted.
§ Mr. CroslandYou, Mr. Speaker, seem to be giving me an excuse for not answering the second part of the supplementary question. On the first part, my right hon. Friend is quite correct in saying that before the previous Government announced their choice of Stansted in the White Paper of March, 1964, no public and objective inquiry such as the one I am proposing was ever conducted.
§ Mr. KirkMay I express my deep gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman for his announcement today and, if it is in order, my thanks to the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Newens) for all he has done and to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John Stevas), and assure him that those of us who have objected to the scheme will co-operate to the full with the inquiry? Would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to consult local authorities before he draws up the terms of reference?
§ Mr. CroslandI will consider the last point. As the hon. Gentleman very well knows, we have already been in consultation with them, not on the nature of the inquiry, but on the merits of the realignment.
§ Mrs. Renée ShortMay I thank my right hon. Friend very sincerely, particularly on behalf of the county of Hertford, which will be very grateful to him for taking this decision? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hertford?"] I happen to live in Hertfordshire. Would my right hon. Friend enlist the help of the South-East Economic Planning Council—it was not consulted before—so that it can carry out a full economic survey of all the implications—transport costs, and so on—before a decision is made?
§ Mr. CroslandI have no doubt that, whatever precise inquiry is set up, it will certainly be aware of the views of the South-East Economic Planning Council already and will wish to take them very fully into account.
§ Sir B. CraddockIn view of the substantial increase in traffic which will take place in the next few years—with 671 the jumbo-jet and so forth—and the very grave problem of noise at London Airport and other airports, would the right hon. Gentleman consider extending his inquiry to whether it is possible to get a site far away from London and so reduce traffic at London and other airports in the future?
§ Mr. CroslandWe certainly do not want the terms of reference of the new inquiry to be too restrictive. On the other hand, nearly all the critics of the Stansted decision have conceded that a third London Airport in the South-East almost certainly will be necessary. Therefore, I think it is essential that the inquiry should concentrate on that.
§ Mr. BostonWhile I am not able to welcome with unreserved enthusiasm my right hon. Friend's statement, may I ask him to confirm that all organisations and the people in all the various alternative sites which have from time to time been suggested will have the fullest possible opportunity to present their views? Can he also say whether such considerations as offshore sites, which have been put forward from time to time, will be borne in mind? Finally, might not consideration also be given to the question of whether the next airport ought to be outside the South-East?
§ Mr. CroslandYes, I can fully confirm my hon. Friend's first point. On the question of offshore sites, I do not want to tie the hands of the inquiry but it is inconceivable that in practice it would not consider this possibility, which has been much discussed in the Press recently. On the question of another airport outside the South-East altogether, I reiterate what I said just now. I do not want the terms of reference to be too restrictive, but almost everybody who has considered the problem is convinced that we shall need somewhere in the South-East another airport whatever we might need in other parts of the country in future years.
§ Mr. Biggs-DavisonIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that I was mulling over a question designed to get him to put the record straight regarding what happened after the appointment of the original inquiry? However, I shall not now put it to him. I merely ask whether he is 672 aware of the great relief that my constituents will feel over the decision that he has made?
§ Mr. WellbelovedWill my right hon. Friend take note that many of us will consider it a shameful act by the Government to change their mind and that when the inquiry considers alternative sites the outcry that will follow if he is unwise enough to settle on another site will make the outcry in the Stansted case sound like peanuts?
§ Mr. CroslandThat certainly suggests an outcry of a very considerable volume. However, to answer the serious part of my hon. Friend's question, I do not consider this a shameful decision. No Government like to change their mind in public. I do not say that they never do it, but at least they do not like it. However, I think that in a case like this, where both local opinion and national opinion clearly was not satisfied, rightly or wrongly, with the decision, it was the Government's duty, although they laid themselves open to this patent criticism, to take that criticism and say even at this stage that they would set up an objective inquiry.
§ Mr. LubbockIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that I and my colleagues share the general satisfaction expressed that for once in the lifetime of this Parliament the generally expressed views of the people have prevailed over the obstinacy of the Government? Is he also aware that we do not agree that critics of the siting of the third London airport have been satisfied that a third airport is necessary? Will the right hon. Gentleman publish the origin and destination survey of traffic so that the figures can be laid before the inquiry?
§ Mr. CroslandOn the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I am afraid that I omitted to look up the record of the Liberal Party in the course of these endless discussions and have no idea where, if anywhere, they stood in the course of them. As to the second part of the question, all relevant information of this kind will be laid before the inquiry.
§ Mr. AtkinsonWhile welcoming the Government's decision——
§ Mr. ShinwellBut my hon. Friend voted for the original decision.
§ Mr. AtkinsonI was at that time a rather reluctant prisoner. While welcoming the statement made by my right hon. Friend, may I ask him to assure the House that in future N.A.T.O. evidence will be excluded from the inquiry?
§ Mr. CroslandI am not sure precisely what my hon. Friend has in mind, but defence considerations in general are, of course, highly relevant to the inquiry. The House will remember that one of the main reasons why the previous decision, under the previous Government and the present Government, went against Silver-stone was precisely defence considerations—not because of N.A.T.O. solely but because of general defence considerations. One of the things that we shall want to discuss with the Opposition and others is how these defence matters can be considered by the committee of inquiry without raising difficult questions of security.
§ Mr. CorfieldTo put the record straight, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that any Conservative so-called decisions were subject to discussion and inquiry? As much of the criticism has been directed at the way in which the procedure was carried out, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the Report of the Council on Tribunals is published so that we can avoid those errors in future?
§ Mr. CroslandThe Report of the Council on Tribunals will be published. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Gov- 674 ernment may have certain comments to make on it. But what we are proposing goes far beyond that. As to the attitude of the previous Government, I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman says. In his introduction to the 1964 Hole Report, Mr. Julian Amery said that the Report concluded:
that Stansted Airport should be selected and designated as London's third airport.This was announced as a Government decision. The inquiry promised by Mr. Amery was not an inquiry into whether this decision was right, but merely an inquiry into the reasons why the decision had been taken.
§ Mr. HeathThe President of the Board of Trade has not done his homework. Following that, in the public discussion, the Prime Minister of the day was committed to the public statement that there would be the fullest inquiry into the whole arrangement.
§ Mr. CroslandYes. This was a promise elicited from the then Prime Minister in the middle of a General Election. Nobody in either party, it is fair to say, thought that this meant that the previous Government were going back on the 1964 Hole Report and doing what we are now doing—throwing the whole question of the siting of the third London airport to a full and objective inquiry.