HC Deb 30 January 1969 vol 776 cc1699-708

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

11.57 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Stodart (Edinburgh, West)

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I feel that the subject of Turnhouse Airport is one in which you yourself may have shown some little interest in that you are a frequent passenger to and from there.

Turnhouse used to be a very famous name in the annals of the Royal Air Force. It was the home of one of the great fighter squadrons, No. 603, the City of Edinburgh Squadron. But in recent years it is not unfair to say that the fame which surrounded Turnhouse has given way to notoriety. It has been the continual subject of Questions in the House, Motions on the Order Paper and delegations to Ministers. Cross-winds, a lack of surveillance radar and of a second runway have disrupted traffic in and out of Turnhouse, and latterly traffic has been all but completely halted through an industrial dispute.

I have no desire to embarrass the working party which I hope will have every success, and I should at this stage like to thank the Minister for his courtesy in allowing me to be informed of the progress of negotiations in the troubles that have been affecting Turnhouse. But one must say, since the House of Commons is the place in which public opinion ought to be reflected, that public opinion, which appreciated the gesture made by the men at Turnhouse over the Christmas and New Year holiday, will react in another way now at the rejection of the advice which I understand, they were given by the leaders of the union, after the reopening of Turnhouse was announced for tomorrow morning.

I emphasise to both sides, one of which in this case is the Minister himself because the management of the airport is in the Government's hands, for whom the Board of Trade acts as agent, that not only do the general public suffer but many firms are experiencing acute difficulties since they rely on the Turn-house services to send their goods daily to London, and from London to the export markets of Europe and America.

The Minister has said that improved productivity must be an essential factor in any increase in the wage award. It is important that people understand what the dispute is about and what the solution suggested is. What does "improved productivity" mean in this dispute? What does it mean when applied to firemen? Clearly, it does not mean that one hopes that they will have more fires to put out. I am, therefore, somewhat confused. Does the Minister want fewer men to man the tender and thereby secure improved productivity through a reduction of manpower, or does he want the existing strength to do more and other jobs about the airport? If the latter, what jobs will they be? These are simple questions which should be answered in simple language, for everyone's benefit.

However, because I am, and have been all along, most anxious to say nothing which would stand in the way of a settlement being reached, for the benefit of the general public, I propose to say no more now that the working party has been set up. I wish it well.

I turn now to the longer-term future of Turnhouse Airport. Here, I shall be rather more critical of the Government. It is deplorable and inexcusable that an airport at which passenger traffic has over the past 10 years increased by an average of 20 per cent. per year, compared with an annual increase for all other United Kingdom airports of 14 per cent., an airport serving the city which is to house the Commonwealth Games in 1970, should have no adequate runway facilities, have no surveillance radar, and lack good terminal buildings.

It is depressing to recall the occasion early in 1965 when I led an all-party delegation to see the right hon. Gentleman who is now Chancellor of the Exchequer. While of course no promises were made at that time, the right hon. Gentleman was hopeful, and we all went away rather encouraged by his hopefulness that we would have a new runway at Turnhouse in about four or five years. Ever since then, there has been what I can only describe as continual procrastination and continual shifting of ground as to why there has not been development at Turnhouse.

By the end of 1966, the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Minister of Power said that new terminal buildings would be needed within five years, but that the present runways were adequate for some years after 1970. A month later, when he was under pressure on the subject, he excused the inaction about Turn-house on the ground that no airline had made any representation for new runways. At the end of 1967, the ground was shifted again to saying that the timing of the new runway was dependent on the replacement programme of British European Airways.

We have been informed that a new runway will take at least 3½ years to construct by the time the planning, the surveying, the engineering and the actual laying of the concrete are done. Therefore, it looks as though 1973 is the very earliest date we can hope for. Even that will require much more action by the Government than we have had up to now. The hon. Gentleman may blame the reluctance of Edinburgh Corporation to do business with him, but he cannot avoid the fact that it is slightly more than a year since it was announced that the British Airports Authority had agreed in principle to the ownership of Turn-house. It was then announced that agreement was expected in March for transfer later last year. In April, last year, it was announced that officials of the Board of Trade and the British Airports Authority had agreed on appropriate terms for the transfer. Ever since then, eight or nine months ago, the hon. Gentleman has been studying these terms.

Therefore, we have the fact that in 1965 we had a situation in which we were told that a new runway would cost between £2 million and £3 million while today we are quoted figures of between £7 million and £8 million as the cost of the runway and the new terminal buildings. The hon. Gentleman may say that priorities come into this matter. If he does, his mention of priorities will not be very well received in Edinburgh in view of the amount of Government money which is being spent on the new tube from Victoria to King's Cross and which everyone will agree will not be a viable proposition, but which is regarded as a necessity for the traffic. The need for a reliable airport outside the capital city of Edinburgh is absolutely as essential as convenient, quick traffic between Victoria and King's Cross.

Therefore, let the hon. Gentleman come away with some priorities tonight. If the sum of £7 million or £8 million is sticking in the Government's throat, let him authorise a runway as a first priority in addition to the comparatively minor but essential cost of radar, which I understand he has authorised and which we are to have next year. Let the terminal buildings come later, because we could make do with the terminal buildings we have provided we are spared the inconvenience of diversions to Abbotsinch. Let us have tonight from the Minister the decision which is long overdue.

12.10 a.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. William Rodgers)

I fully appreciate that the future of Turnhouse is of great interest not only to the City of Edinburgh but to Scotland as a whole, and that the airport has a long and distinguished history of more than 50 years of operational use. It has been, as the hon. Member said, a famous name. It also has a great potential for development and can play an important part in providing rapid communications to Scotland as a whole with consequences, for example, for economic development and tourism.

I have lately received a request from the Lord Provost of Edinburgh for a full discussion of what the future holds, and the topics on our agenda will inevitably have much in common with the points the hon. Member has raised tonight. I have replied to the Lord Provost today, agreeing to a meeting which I hope will take place shortly.

I am glad that the hon. Member has taken the initiative and provided this opportunity for discussion in the House. I have noted carefully all that he has said, and I am sure that the exchange will turn out to have been of mutual advantage to us all.

I will first deal with the current industrial dispute, because whatever difficulties it has caused—and I do not disagree with the assessment the hon. Member has made—it is in a sense the lesser issue. I appreciate his generous personal remarks, and I shall keep him informed of any development.

The present position is that the principal union concerned, the Transport and General Workers, has agreed to participate in a joint working party which will examine urgently the prospects for a productivity agreement which would also cover Aberdeen and Belfast, I do not think I should be tempted into discussion of what productivity is, because this would prejudge the inquiry and any decision I might have to make, but the object is fuller utilisation of whatever manpower may at any time be employed. I hope we shall find scope for it despite the problem that the hon. Member has mentioned.

I have asked for a report by the end of next week, and I hope that at that stage we can move towards an agreement. I must emphasise that any final settlement must be consistent with the Government's prices and incomes policy, and that any productivity bargain must be genuine.

As the House knows, on 4th December the employees were offered an increase of 13s. 4d. or 3½ per cent., in accordance with the long-standing practice by which the basis for rates of pay has been Scottish local authority rates. Perhaps I might add, because there has been some misunderstanding about this, and much emphasis on anomalies, that the gap between rates at Turnhouse on one hand and Abbotsinch and Prestwick on the other is not that large, especially when proper account is taken of the pension arrangements for established Government employees at Turnhouse. I say this without prejudice to whether a common rate for all Scottish airports could be justified. However, I shall not pursue this now. The immediate necessity is to let the working party get on with its job.

I am very glad to tell the hon. Gentleman that the employees will be back at work tomorrow morning at 7 a.m., and that B.E.A. services to and from Turn-house will be resumed normally by Monday, as soon as B.E.A. can operate again. I understand that the airline will operate some extra flights meanwhile for the rugby international on Saturday. This is a movement in the right direction, and I hope that in the end it will have a happy outcome. If common sense prevails and everybody creates conditions in which the airport can function properly, we shall avoid further inconvenience to passengers and the possibility of damaging consequences for the Scottish economy.

On the wider issue, perhaps I may recapitulate some of the developments of the last ten years. Discussions with Edinburgh Corporation on the future of Turnhouse began as long ago as 1959, as I know the hon. Gentleman is aware, when transfer from the then Air Ministry to Civil Aviation was pending. They were resumed in the light of the White Paper of August, 1961, which set out the previous Government's declared policy of transferring Board of Trade grade II airports to local authorities wherever possible. From that date on there was a series of meetings with representatives of the Corporation, until the summer of 1967. It seemed to the Ministry of Aviation and then to the Board of Trade that transfer to Edinburgh Corporation made sense.

Local authorities generally proved willing to assume responsibility for the airports offered to them, both in their own direct interest as they saw it and with wider regional responsibilities in mind. But Edinburgh Corporation made it clear that it would not accept transfer on terms which might result in a contribution from the rates to operating losses, especially one which looked like being larger than at Glasgow. In particular, the Corporation saw difficulties in accepting an open-ended responsibility for capital costs. All in all it wanted liability limited.

It was, of course, entitled to this view, for it, and it alone, can judge its own best financial interest. But it should be clearly understood—and I have in mind here what the hon. Gentleman said about continued procrastination—in view of the criticisms of present delays, that Edinburgh Corporation showed considerable hesitation over a long period of negotiations in assuming the task of ownership, whereas some other local authorities jumped at the chance and were prepared to undertake the costs and risks involved. I should add that the British Airports Authority, which has a statutory duty to operate profitably, is expected to take the airport over on terms not more favourable than those offered to Edinburgh Corporation.

Mr. Stodart

May I ask one thing? I am not quite clear what is the purpose of the Minister's meeting with the Lord Provost. Is this to reopen the idea that Edinburgh is to take over the airport, and will he see that this does not further delay the plans for the development of Turnhouse?

Mr. Rodgers

The request for the meeting came from the Lord Provost. He has not provided me with the agenda, but as a matter of common courtesy I have agreed to meet him. I suppose that he will probably wish to discuss the sort of timetable which the hon. Gentleman has raised tonight, but it is his initiative and not mine.

Although we hope very much that the transfer to the British Airports Authority will go forward, the B.A.A. has rightly insisted on a clear agreement on the capital programme for Turnhouse which it will inherit and on the amount which the central Government will contribute.

There are two principal items in the capital programme: first, the terminal buildings; second, the runway. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the existing terminal building, which was opened in 1956, is seriously over-crowded during busy periods; there is no dispute on this. Although we have been spending small sums on relieving the more pressing problems of congestion, it is clear that a new terminal building and various associated features are required. Our present estimate of costs for this alone is £4 m. or more. This is a lot of money. After the most careful review, we remain convinced that an entirely new terminal complex on a new site must be operational by the summer of 1973, capable of an annual capacity of 1½ million passengers. Again, we do not dispute the necessity, and this is the sort of timetable that we still have in mind.

The problem of the runway is twofold. There are the difficulties arising from its alignment. We in this House are very familiar with the problem of diversions due to cross-winds, though almost as many diversions from Turnhouse are attributable to other weather reasons, especially bad visibility. Then there is the difficulty of its length. The present runway is already causing some payload restrictions, and the economic effect of these will grow as a greater proportion of the traffic is in modern jet aircraft such as the later version of the Trident.

The need is to analyse carefully the benefits of improved runway facilities in relation to costs, which could be as much as those for the terminal complex. There is no doubt that a second runway will be required one day, but, clearly, the economics must be examined, and this can affect the time scale. Of course, there is room for improvement, but we have at least as great a responsibility to the British taxpayer—especially at a time when the House has put all public expenditure under the closest scrutiny—as Edinburgh Corporation has to its citizens. The Opposition have been particularly outspoken on this.

It may be, though I simply do not know until our studies are complete, that a new runway would be best postponed for some years after 1973 and that much the same operational result could be achieved by interim extensions to the existing runway. We have not yet come to a firm view, but I hope that we shall do so very shortly. Meanwhile, this is a decision for the Government, and it would be unfair for anyone to blame the British Airports Authority for the delay.

In recent weeks, together with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office, I have seen Mr. Peter Masefield and Mr. Robin McLellan. They have assured us of the Authority's continuing wish to assume the management of the aerodrome as soon as the Government make it possible for development to begin on the lines agreed. It is their determination to make Turnhouse a credit to their undertaking, with a high standard of public service.

What I have made clear is our hope that we shall be able within the next few months to put the British Airports Authority in a position to develop and operate the airport in a manner consistent with the expected growth of passengers, freight, aircraft movements and the range and spread of air services, and to be as free as possible of the existing operational restraints. In parallel, we shall continue to provide and improve the aerodrome navigation services as far as we can.

As I said at the beginning, Turnhouse has a significant rôle in improving access to that part of Scotland, with important and desirable consequences not only for the people of Edinburgh. We shall certainly play our part in ensuring that it is well fitted for this rôle. I hope very soon that we shall be able to make the future plain. However, it is our duty to take all factors into account and phase the very considerable expenditure involved in a way consistent with restraints on public expenditure and the real benefits which will result.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Twelve o'clock.