§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Joseph Harper.]
§ 10.19 p.m.
§ Mr. Terence Boston (Faversham)I am very grateful for the opportunity to raise the matter of the procedure of the Commission on the third London Airport, and I thank my hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Board of Trade for coming to this debate. This is an historic inquiry. There has been no inquiry of this kind on this scale, and it will set precedents, procedural and otherwise, for any future inquiries of this kind whether on this sort of subject or on others, and therefor it is important that we get the procedure right. Therefore, it is very valuable to deal with the procedure as we go along. I should like to make some general points and some specific ones about the Commission, and especially some points about local inquiries into the four sites short-listed by the Commission.
Before coming to that I should like to say a word of tribute to the Chairman, Mr. Justice Roskill, and his Commission. As one who has had a fair amount of correspondence with them over the last six months, I should like to pay a tribute to the courteous, helpful and speedy way in which they and the Secretary to the Commission, Mr. Caines, have dealt with queries and worries about the Commission's work and its procedure.
I come first to the timing of the local inquiries and in particular the first one which is announced as due to start on 5th May. I should make it clear that I am not using this occasion as an opportunity to discuss the merits or disadvantages of particular sites, but I may possibly mention places as examples.
Since the announcement of the short list and the publication of the site information on 4th March very little time has been left for bodies to prepare their cases. I appreciate the difficulties, and the fact that there is need to proceed as quickly as possible. Indeed, I am among those who, before the Commission was set up, was urging the need for an early decision on the third London Airport 1290 because of the growing congestion at Heathrow and the growing competition from other European countries for air traffic and the necessity that someone must come first for local inquiry, but now that we have embarked on this exercise there is need to allow adequate time for adequate representations.
This is not the best time for local authorities, because of the local elections, and also it is difficult for other bodies to get organised quickly and to get their cases prepared, and I hope that this is a disadvantage which will be taken into account by the Commission. The Commission has decided to be helpful by allowing some flexibility on the date for applications to appear—21st March; and the date for submitting proofs of evidence—this Friday, 18th April. This is very helpful indeed.
We have done an analysis of the time allowed for the Foulness inquiry compared with that for the other three sites, and it is the case that not only is Foulness the first but it also has less time between the publication of the site information and the start of the inquiry. Taking the total number of days and the number of working days for each, we find that for Foulness the number is 62 days in all and 42 working days; for Nuthampstead, 69 and 46; for Cublington 76 and 53; and Thurleigh, 103 and 72. The later sites have more time to prepare anyway. So we hope that the Commission will allow time for any representations to be made afterwards, if points have been left out, and if the date has to stay at 5th May.
The Commission has said, rightly, that it hopes that bodies with similar views will get together beforehand to avoid repetition in giving evidence. Because of the limited time this aim may be frustrated. Not only is it difficult for bodies to co-ordinate their activities, but it is a fact that it is rather difficult for them to get themselves organised in the first place. So we hope that the Commission will be prepared to accept some unavoidable repetition if necessary, especially at the earlier inquiries.
I come to a specific point about lack of time, which has been raised with me by one big local authority: it has another major planning inquiry at the same time, 1291 and there may be other authorities in this position.
Another point which has been causing some concern is whether at the local inquiries the evidence is to be taken by subject, with each subject taken in order, or whether it will be taken from each body in turn. If it is by subject, then this will cause particular difficulty especially for voluntary bodies, as they have a need to be there all the time and have only limited resources, and I hope that the Commission will decide to take the evidence body by body.
There is a further point on the proofs of evidence. As the Commission is now being flexible about the date, some bodies may hold back so as to see what other people have said and then include counter points in their own proofs. I hope the Commission will make it clear that it will circulate the proofs all together.
I come now to the site information published by the Commission before each local inquiry. I must confess that many of us expected very much more information would be provided before the inquiries so that people could adequately gauge the effects of an airport in their area. As to the noise and number index, and first the N.N.I. lines. The Commission has shown these only down to the 40 N.N.I. level, but there is a need to go down at least to 30 N.N.I. It is argued that 30 N.N.I. is not a critical level by day. This is questionable, but it is certainly a critical level at night. The 30 N.N.I. would, of course, cover a much wider area, and it is essential that people in those areas should see how they may be affected. Moreover, the Commission has assumed in drawing its own lines that there will be a reduction in aircraft noise levels over the next 20 years that would reduce the N.N.I. level by 10. That is at least questionable and very optimistic, and, if that assumption is discounted, the Commission's own N.N.I. lines must be increased by 10 N.N.I. to bring them into line with noise levels as they are at present and in the immediately foreseeable future, which means ever more people and areas would be affected.
There is also a need for information on flight paths and stacking areas. Many 1292 of us feel that these should be available for the local inquiries. People need to know the likely flight paths to see how they might be affected. The same can be said of the stacking areas, especially where, for instance, a take-off route passes underneath a stacking area. This is where a real noise nuisance could occur.
Again, on runway alignment and the precise position of the airport, there is no exact location given for Foulness. Runway alignment, as was clear from Stansted, can have a crucial effect on places affected, and on inquiries. The Commission is open to representations and alternative suggestions, and it doubtless has had this in mind in excluding this information, but an indication would be helpful on all these points.
Detailed information is needed on the population likely to be drawn into an airport area, and about land usage, such as the land to be used for housing and communications. At present we have estimates only of the primary employment that an airport would create. All these details, at least in time for the hearings at stage V of the Commission's work, are needed, so that local authorities and people generally can see the physical effects of the airport on their area.
It is understood that the evidence which the Commission has already received in stage I of its work will be published soon, probably not in time for Foulness, but before all the other local inquiries are over. This could place the later inquiries at an advantage. I realise that there is a desire to get out this material as soon as it is ready, but I wonder whether it might not be fairer to wait until all the local inquiries are over before publication.
There is need for much more publicity about the Commission's work. It is clear that some bodies, especially some local authorities, are not making representations at the local inquiry stage. There are two reasons for this. One is that there has not been enough time for them to consider it. Some have had rush emergency meetings and others have not been able to have meetings in time. Second, and much more significant, some authorities and bodies have been under a basic misconception about the purposes of the inquiry and the Commission's aim. Some have thought that they must opt 1293 now either for objecting, that is opposing, or supporting a particular site, and they have held back because they had no firm view; whereas the Commission's purpose, especially for the stage II inquiries, is to gather the facts. The Commission is anxious to have representations and factual details about all possible effects. It needs to be made clear that the Commission is seeking factual information, with or without a view on the merits of a site.
It is hoped that there will be much more publicity about the Commission's basic aims, especially for local authorities and other statutory bodies, and for them to be supplied with this, if possible directly. It is also hoped that those bodies which have not so far made representations will not on that account be precluded from making representations later. If they are likely to be affected in one way or another, they may later decide that they wish to appear, particularly when they see what the flight paths, and so on, are likely to be, as they may wish to put forward alternative proposals.
There may well be need for consultations amongst local authorities and the Commission when it comes to deciding the precise location of the flight paths and the stacking areas. I should have thought that the general line would be that it is better for bodies to make representations if they are in any doubt.
As a result of greater publicity, more time being available before the later inquiries and the experience gained from Foulness and other early inquiries, more bodies, especially local authorities, may decide to make representations at the later inquiries than at Foulness. One hopes that the Commission will take this into account and will not attach undue significance to a smaller number of representations at Foulness or the other earlier inquiries, if that turns out to be the case, than the number of representations made at the later inquiries.
Long before the Commission was set up, many people, myself included, felt that it was essential to get ahead with the third London Airport quickly. Now, with the Commission in being, we must all see that we do everything that we can to help it in its work.
The Commission will set an historic precedent with this inquiry, and, whatever 1294 the outcome, it could not be in more capable hands. It will also set a precedent for any inquiries which take place under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1968—a great reforming Measure which provides for planning inquiry commissions of this sort. We must make quite sure, by our assistance to the Commission in its work, that it succeeds.
§ 10.30 p.m.
§ The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. William Rodgers)The important speech this evening is not mine but that which we have just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Boston). I say that not only in acknowledgment of his typically well-informed comments, but also because of my own rather unusual rôle. I have listened to all that my hon. Friend has said, but most of it does not require action on my part. I noticed that he said quite often that he hoped that the Commission would do this or that. I am sure that he chose his words well, because in his speech he has been talking through me to the Roskill Commission. I say that not to escape responsibility, but because of the Commission's own independent status. I know that my hon. Friend appreciates this fully, and I am sure that he would not wish it otherwise. Indeed, his closing remarks confirmed this.
I shall draw Mr. Justice Roskill's attention to what my hon. Friend has said and, in so far as there are points remaining at the end of the evening which still need clarification, I know that it will be the wish of the Commission to set my hon. Friend's mind at rest.
He raised the question, for example, of whether views will be expressed body by body or subject by subject. That is precisely the sort of matter on which the Commission alone can pronounce. I make this explanation because, at the time of the Commission's announcement about the short list of sites, there was a tendency on the part of some people to turn to the Government with comments and objections.
When, on 20th May of last year, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade announced the setting up of the Roskill Commission, for the time being the Government bowed out of the discussion of the problems of the timing of, and site for, a third London Airport. I am sure that we made the 1295 right decision, and I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute, as my hon. Friend has done, to Mr. Justice Roskill and his colleagues for the very efficient way in which they are carrying out their task. We are all very much in their debt.
Looking forward to the time when the Commission's work has been completed and the Government come into the picture again, in the announcement which my right hon. Friend made in the House he explained that the Government were setting up the Roskill Commission to inquire into the timing and alternative sites and to recommend which site should be selected. Obviously the Commission's recommendations will bear great weight. Given the whole history of the affair, it is very unlikely that what the Commission recommends will be rejected. But the final decision must remain a matter for the Government at the time and for this House. That is the proper position which I am sure is fully understood by Parliament and is in accordance with its wishes. I mention that not as something new, but in order that the future course of events may be seen.
May I, therefore, turn for a moment to the procedure and make clear once again the manner in which the Commission is proceeding? I do not wish to enter into arguments about the procedure employed by the Commission, for its broad lines, as set out in the OFFICIAL REPORT at the time of my right hon. Friend's statement, had been carefully considered beforehand, had been agreed with the Opposition, and attracted universally favourable comment. Nevertheless—and this is an important point which my hon. Friend very typically acknowledged—the procedure was not intended to form a strait-jacket for the Commission, and the Commission was, and still is, free to make modifications if it feels this to be desirable and practical. I have no doubt that it will listen sympathetically to any reasoned representations to this effect, although its decisions must be accepted as final.
The Commission started work in June, 1968, and early this year completed stage I: the selection of a small number of sites for more detailed investigation. At the beginning of March, the Commission published its short list. These are Cublington 1296 (Wing), Foulness, Nuthampstead and Thurleigh (Bedford).
Stage II of the Commission's work will consist of local public hearings at each of the short listed sites. These will provide an opportunity for the Commission to be informed as early as possible of all the local implications which should be taken into account. The first of these public hearings, due to commence on 5th May, as my hon. Friend said, will relate to Foulness and will be followed by similar hearings at Nuthampstead in June, Cublington in July and Thurleigh in September.
Stages III and IV of the Commission's work will consist of detailed research work on the short-listed sites, the Commission's conclusions thereon, and will run concurrently with stage II. Stage V will take the form of a public inquiry and is intended to enable the interested parties to test the material produced during the earlier stages. It is expected that the Commission will make its final recommendation in the latter half of 1970, which is broadly in line with the timetable which the President had in mind.
Two general points are particularly relevant and should be stressed in view of what my hon. Friend has said. Stage II hearings are not public inquiries and are not, therefore, parallel to the 1965–66 Chelmsford inquiry into Stansted. They are simply a means of enabling local people to make the Commission aware of their views and of other local factors before its proceedings are too far advanced. My hon. Friend summed it up well when he referred to gathering the facts as people in the locality see them.
The stage V public hearing next year will give local people and others an opportunity to raise points on the short-listed sites not adequately covered in earlier stages. This will be the second bite at the cherry. This will be some reassurance for those who felt that if they did not get in on stage II, or to their own satisfaction, they would in some way miss out.
My hon. Friend has raised the question of the lack of time in the case of Foulness. I agree that there has been a problem here. But this is for the Commission, not for us. The Commission has this difficult problem of proceeding towards a report as soon as it reasonably 1297 can, and at the same time doing its job thoroughly. It is a matter of striking a balance and allowing some flexibility.
My hon. Friend said that the Commission has been helpful in showing certain flexibility towards Foulness. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend who, together with other hon. Members, has spoken out very well, and enabled the Commission to see how the conduct of its affairs can be most readily accommodated to local wishes and requirements.
My hon. Friend mentioned the question of noise levels, flight paths and stacking areas. These are matters which I believe he raised directly with Mr. Justice Roskill. In regard to the information which the Commission has published about the Foulness site, the Commission's procedures made it clear that much further research and investigation about all the sites on the short list still has to take place during stages III and IV. As I have already said, the stage II local hearings will not be the only occasions on which the interested parties will be able to make their views known to the Commission. They will have a further opportunity of arguing their case—and, if they wish, of raising new points or points which were not fully dealt with at stage II—at the public inquiries at stage V, when all the detailed material affecting the sites concerned will be available. But if there are points which still need consideration by the Commission I am sure that it will note those raised by my hon. Friend tonight.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the question of the publication now of the cost-benefit material produced during stage I. This, again, is largely a matter for the Commission to decide. I remind the House that the outline procedure initially announced by my right hon. Friend deliberately omitted to provide for public hearings at stage I, in view of the impossibility of investigating in public the pros and cons of a hundred or more sites without excessively prolonging the Commission's proceedings.
The Commission is an independent body and is itself responsible for the use it makes of the evidence it receives. In drawing up its noise contours the Commission has had a certain amount of advice and help from the Board of Trade, but it has not 1298 attempted—there is no reason why it should—to agree with the Department beforehand all the assumptions which underlie the published contours. There is no question of the Board's being answerable for the Commission's assumptions on noise certification or other matters. My hon. Friend should pursue that point with the Commission.
The Commission is planning to publish in the near future the evidence it has received from various quarters during stage I, as distinct from its own cost-benefit work on the basis of this evidence, which it does not propose to publish until its final report. Although the Commission is seeing that it is done with all possible urgency, it is not practicable, because of printing difficulties, to publish the material before the opening of the Foulness local hearing, next month. However, the stage I evidence is not strictly relevant to the stage II hearings, which are concerned with obtaining local information on each of the sites and are not formal public inquiries into the choice of site. The printing delays are not, therefore, a good reason either for postponing the Foulness hearing until the evidence is published or for postponing the publication of the evidence until all four stage II hearings are over.
In conclusion, I should like to say again that I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter in the way he did this evening, and providing an opportunity for clarification. He has said, quite rightly, that it was most important that all those who might be interested should be aware of the Commission's work and of the procedures. He also said that some local authorities and other bodies were under a basic misconception. I am sure that what he has said and the clear way he has set the issues out will help to achieve the very purposes that he has in mind.
I know that his own interest is not only with Foulness, in so far as it affects him, but to ensure that the Commission can proceed with its work and do a first-rate job. We ourselves are entirely satisfied that the Commission is well aware of the need to provide the fullest opportunity for local interests to make their views known, and that its published arrangements—particularly the additional opportunities provided at stage V—should enable this need to be met. The Commission has already made it clear 1299 that it will—where there is a genuine need—try to allow a reasonable amount of flexibility in its arrangements. The Commission has an intricate, contentious and urgent problem to deal with, and I 1300 am sure that no one would wish to make its task more difficult.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at a quarter to Eleven o'clock.