HC Deb 19 November 1969 vol 791 cc1469-80

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

10.43 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)

At three hours' notice, I thank my right hon. Friends from the Scottish Office and the Board of Trade for coming here to discuss the problems of Turnhouse Airport. I do not want to use time to go into the vagaries that have resulted in a loss to B.E.A. of traffic and that have, more importantly, involved considerable disadvantage to Scottish industry, especially in West Fife—and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Mr. Adam Hunter) will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that he can elaborate this point—and also considerable difficulty to pilots of the aircraft involved, both of B.E.A. and B.U.A., and, indeed, to the very patient and helpful staff at Turnhouse.

I am not greatly interested in using time to try to pinpoint whose fault it is. or to sort out the triangle of blame among the Board of Trade, the Edinburgh Corporation and the British Airports Authority. Personally, I think that the blame rests heavily with the Edinburgh Corporation, because the Scottish people have lost patience on this issue.

I want, first, to raise the issue of finance. Many of us would like to see money diverted to facilities—if money has to be found somewhere—even from industrial grants, because we think that expenditure on good communications such as Turnhouse is even more important than industrial grants in bringing in industry. The irritation caused to potential executives is a significant disadvantage to the excellent work of my hon Friends.

I have a constructive proposal. It Edinburgh Corporation is going to be this parsimonious, it would be justified in appealing to industry and to local authorities like West Lothian. Fife, parts of Lanarkshire and Midlothian to cooperate in meeting some of the expenses which accrue to the State.

I have read the OFFICIAL REPORT Of the Adjournment debate initiated by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart), when terminal buildings were virtually promised by the Board of Trade. I do not think that this expenditure is necessary. The buildings for passengers are adequate. What are needed are better facilities for the staff.

The top priority is the radar, especially in low cloud. The pilots are amazed and irritated that Turnhouse is not fitted with what most European airports regard as part of the ordinary equipment of modern aircraft life. This should be done before the Commonwealth Games of July next year. One can imagine the fiasco of diversion after diversion brought about by low cloud and fog. as we have had in high summer. My hon. Friends' next meeting should be with the pilots, who will then be able to tell them what they want better than at second hand, through me.

What runway facilities are now in view? Is it to be lengthened? What is the effect on payload restrictions? Some of us who travel regularly were astonished at the reply of the former Minister of State, Board of Trade, on 23rd July, that only one per cent. of traffic was affected by cross-winds. Some of us must have been extraordinarily unlucky in our travelling habits.

Precisely what conditions are necessary—I have given my hon. Friend notice of this question—for the Trident to use its automatic landing gear on which B.E.A. has spent several millions of pounds installing for use in fog and low cloud? Edinburgh, where these East Coast conditions prevail, must be next on the list for this kind of use. Since I have promised other hon. Members time to speak, I will simply repeat my question: what is the present situation over staff conditions at the airport?

10.48 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Stodart (Edinburgh. West)

I thank the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) for his courtesy in telling me, at slightly short notice, that he was raising this matter. Turn-house Airport lies in my constituency, but this is not a parochial matter. It is used by hon. Gentlemen from different parts of Scotland. This subject generally receives a bi-partisan approach. Unfortunately, as so often happens, particularly for Scottish hon. Members, one finds that one's papers on a subject are either in London when one is in Scotland or vice versa. Therefore, I am speaking entirely from a memory which, as the advancing years creep on, is getting less good than it previously was. But certainly my impression of Turnhouse and its problems is one of terrible delay and prevarication by a succession of Ministers whose responsibility it has been. I can recollect taking a delegation—I was allowed to lead it—consisting of Members of both parties in 1964. I can remember that the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) was on it, and we were received with great sympathy and kindness by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said that we would almost certainly—he made no promise and I do not pin him down to this—get a new runway for Turnhouse in the early 1970s.

I speak from memory of a letter that received from the Minister of State, Board of Trade in August in which he said that discussions were going on on the two subjects—whether or not we should have a new runway or whether the existing one should be extended, despite the fact that it runs in the wrong direction in view of the prevailing winds, or whether there should be a central Scotland airport and therefore presumably not develop Turn-house Airport at all.

As to radar, I think questions of mine elicited the information that it is the only airport of its size and importance in the whole of the United Kingdom that does not have this essential equipment. Again my recollection is that I as assured that this would be installed long before the moment of which we are now speaking. Therefore, I add my voice to those who have called for some action at Turnhouse.

I think that patience is almost exhausted. I do not know—I would not attempt to judge—who is responsible, and whether Edinburgh Corporation has been lazy about this. I would go as far as to think that there have probably been faults on every side. But for goodness sake, let someone take a lead and let us get a move on.

10.53 p.m.

Mr. Adam Hunter (Dunfermline Burghs)

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) for raising this subject on the Adjournment tonight.

This has been a longstanding problem and I have on a number of occasions attended on deputations to try to get the problem resolved. In fact, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) was with me on one occasion. A deputation from the local authority in my constituency, which is quite some way from the airport, mentioned the subject to the Board of Trade about two years ago, when the importance and the need for the improvements suggested by the two previous speakers was stressed.

The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), and my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay) and I received representations from the Glenrothes Corporation who had evidence from almost every industrialist in Fife, and almost every one to a man agreed that the improvements required at Turnhouse should be made as soon as possible. This group of industrialists represent most of the industry in Fife, and I am sure that their views should impress the Minister of State.

It has been arranged that my hon. Friends the Members for Fife, West and for Dunfermline Burghs should interview the President of the Board of Trade or the Minister of State on 3rd December on this pressing problem.

On occasion—in fact, almost every year—I go on an all-in package holiday and I find that in order to do so I have got to go to Glasgow Airport or Prestwick Airport. I know that many people who live in the eastern and central parts of Scotland would take these holidays to the Continent if Turnhouse Airport operated such holiday flights.

The future of Turnhouse is very important, and I have great pleasure in adding my contribution to the debate.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. David Steel(Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles)

I am grateful to the Minister of State for allowing me a minute in order to add another voice to what has been said on this important subject. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) for seizing the opportunity of raising it tonight.

The hon. Gentleman referred to one per cent. of traffic being diverted because of cross-winds. Even if that figure is accurate, it is not the percentage which matters but the loss of confidence and the uncertainty which any appreciable degree of diversion causes. I speak as an hon. Member who comes from a part of Scotland which has lost its rail service in the past year and, as a result, is even more dependent on air services between Edinburgh and London. It is most unsatisfactory for businessmen arranging visits or humble Members of Parliament arranging timetables if they cannot be certain that aircraft will land and take off at advertised times. It is a disincentive to travelling by air.

I have heard it suggested that, to surmount the problem of cross-winds, perhaps a shorter than normal runway might be considered which could be used only in conditions of strong cross-winds. Has that point been explored fully?

I want to support what the hon. Gentleman said about the terminal. We have had statements from the Board of Trade in the past which might have led one to believe that a new passenger terminal had high priority in its thinking. I hope that that is not so. It is uncomfortable to have an overcrowded terminal, especially in the event of flights being delayed, but that is an inconvenience which can be endured. The other matters must have a higher priority, and I hope that the Government will attend to them.

10.57 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Goronwy Roberts)

My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has been generous enough to commiserate with me on the shortness of notice for this debate. I can assure him that, in my short tenure of office at the Board of Trade, my attention has been drawn several times already to the problems which attend the development of Turnhouse Airport. Indeed, so much time has been devoted to the subject that there can be few hon. Members, whether or not directly interested in aviation or in the problems of the Edinburgh area, who have not been made aware that a major problem exists.

I know that it is a subject on which hon. Members on both sides of the House hold strong views, and they are very understandable. Let me assure them at once, as did my predecessor earlier this year, that the Government recognise the role that Turnhouse is playing and can continue to play in providing good and speedy air communication to Edinburgh and much of eastern Scotland to the benefit of industry, commerce and tourism.

The case for a speedy and major development has been peat tonight with great force and skill. But so much has been said on the subject already that I find myself in the difficult position of being able to add little that is new. However, there are one or two points to which I will draw the attention of hon. Members.

I will not take up time by repeating the history of our negotiations with Edinburgh Corporation or the circumstances which led to their breakdown. Much as I regret the situation in which the Corporation, unlike many other local authorities in Great Britain, has found itself unable to assume much of the burden of management and ownership, we must deal with the situation as it exists at the end of 1969.

It is common ground that there are two distinct problems at Turnhouse. The first is the need to provide, against the situation which we expect to exist in a few years' time, a new terminal complex to ease passenger congestion in the terminal building proper, to provide more space for aircraft, and generally to facilitate movement in the terminal area. We accept that need.

I used the phrase "distinct problems" a moment ago because it is sometimes suggested that by deferring work on the new terminal complex, or by engaging in a cheaper and perhaps nastier job, more money would be available for a solution of the second problem, that of runway development. This is a false alternative. We shall, of course, be glad to secure any proper economies that can be obtained within our present estimates, but we do not intend to descend into public squalor. On the contrary, we intend to develop a terminal complex which will not be unworthy of Scotland's capital city. I know that all Scottish Members are equally concerned that, whatever we do at Turnhouse, it will be not only to the benefit of Scotland as a whole, but will express their pride in particular in its capital city. But if some savings prove to be possible, it does not follow that they should be used in aid of expenditure on a runway solution which might not be justified in its own right.

I turn now to the runway problem. Although my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian has been good enough to say that he rates it second in importance to the provision of radar, the need for a major new runway is the development most frequently, persistently, and I would say vociferously, advocated. It is not an investment that could be justified, any more than the alternative of a runway extension, or, for that matter, a new terminal complex, in strictly commercial terms. Turnhouse airport is already losing us money and even on the most optimistic assumptions of traffic growth, aided perhaps by greater regularity of operation, the extra revenue would fall well short of servicing the extra capital required, and this is a tidy sum.

Mr. Daly ell

Could it not be that the reason Turnhouse is losing money is precisely that uncertainties and vagaries cause people not to use an airport like that?

Mr. Roberts

I do not think that my hon. Friend can have seized the point I was making, namely, that the amount of extra capital involved, running into some millions of pounds, might well affect the charges in future and not be overtaken by even the most optimistic estimates of the extra traffic. It is a matter of judgment, but I am bound to put the point to the House.

Certainly nobody who has studied the problem, such as the Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce or the British Airports Authority, sees any prospect of Turn-house becoming viable within the next decade, given the major new investment that is needed. This is a large sum of money projected to the future in terms of charges which will have to be met and set against the most optimistic estimates of new traffic.

But I hasten to add that a commercial approach, while important to Government and to trading activities, is not the only factor, and the Government fully recognise, as many of my hon. Friends have repeatedly urged, that good and reliable communications bring benefits that are not reflected in narrow aerodrome accounts. That is why, as my predecessor told the House earlier this year, we are subjecting the problem to a thorough cost-benefit study in which the wider benefits of an improved runway system could be set against the substantial Exchequer costs involved, and this, of course, means the cost to the taxpayer.

Our study on this wider basis has now been completed, and it certainly has produced more attractive results. We are convinced that greater runway length is necessary to avoid severe payload or range restrictions on the new jet aircraft that B.E.A. will be bringing into service. It does not, however, suggest that a new runway, as opposed to a runway extension, would be justified for this purpose. Nor does the difference appear to be made good when allowance is made for the costs, direct and indirect, to airline and passengers of diversion and cancellation of flights due to cross-wind—a problem which admittedly a runway extension would do little or nothing to cure.

We fully recognise the great inconvenience that these incidents entail and the depressing effect on traffic generally—a point made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel)—the financial effect of which we have also tried to assess. It is the case that crosswind diversions represent only a small proportion of total diversions. We may argue about the percentage. I have a few figures here. I take from this debate, among other things, a desire to look at this point a little more closely. It is a miniscule proportion. That is not to say that it is unimportant. 1969 has admittedly been exceptional: only 16 cross-wind diversions have occurred so far. The cure for the major cause of diversions—poor visibility—will be long and slow.

Against this background it may be asked why the Government do not come to a firm decision now, as we are repeatedly pressed to do, and announce firm dates, both for the terminal complex and the runway extension.

I can assure the House that the absence of a decision does not derive from the lack of a sense of urgency or out of a lack of concern for the problems of Scotland as a whole and of Edinburgh and Eastern Scotland in particular. On the contrary, we are very mindful of both, and while an early decision is important it is even more important that the right decision should be reached. We are, therefore, reappraising the cost-benefit study to make sure that no relevant factors have been neglected and that proper weight has been given to them all. 1 am hopeful that a decision will be reached before the end of the year.

I turn now to one or two particular points raised in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian referred to the need for radar. I hope that he and other hon. Members will be pleased to know that an order was placed last April for delivery by the end of December, 1969. We hope that works services will also be completed in December, allowing us to begin the task of installing the equipment early next year. This work, together with flight trials and acceptance tests, will take approximately five months. The radar should, therefore, be in operational service in July, 1970, which is a very important date for Scotland, but there is always the possibility of unforeseen snags which may prevent us from meeting this time- table. I feel reasonably hopeful that this will be in operation by July, 1970.

I should perhaps add that the functions of the radar include traffic marshalling and sequencing to the primary landing aid—the instrument landing system—the control of traffic in and around the airport control zone, and the provision of a radar approach aid to aircraft landing at Edinburgh as far as two nautical miles from touchdown. The radar is thus primarily intended to reduce to a minimum delays inherent in the present procedural system of control. It is not intended to facilitate approaches in lower weather minima. Some concern has been expressed about labour relations at Turnhouse. In fact, these relations are good and operations are efficient. It is a good and efficient team. We are looking forward to setting up a formal Whitley Council there without much further delay.

To sum up, the Government recognise the importance of, and the need for, early decisions in respect of the development of Turnhouse, with consequential benefit to the parts of Scotland concerned, which we are determined it will continue to serve well. At the same time, we are anxious that the right decisions are taken and are recognised to be right by responsible Scottish opinion. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian and to other hon. Members, both inside and outside this debate, for their continuing assistance in ensuring that there is riot the smallest danger of the interests of Scottish business and commerce or of the ordinary traveller being overlooked when the final decision is taken. I come fresh and new to this matter, and indeed to my present office, and I can assure my hon. Friends that I will take from the debate a renewed desire to study the problem again and to do everything in my power to do the utmost which will benefit Edinburgh and Scotland.

Mr. Dallyell

Before my hon. Friend sits down, will he turn his fresh and new critical faculties to the assumption by his advisers that a catchment area of 14 million people cannot support a viable airport? Such an assumption seems very strange in view of the experience of many countries in Europe, quite apart from that of the United States—for example, Dayton, Ohio. How can it be argued that an operation in Edinburgh would be unprofitable when other people seem to find it profitable? I hope that my hon. Friend will turn his fresh and new attention to this issue.

Mr. Roberts

This is a matter of judgment arising from expert examination of the circumstances. Edinburgh is not the only centre of substantial population where this situation arises. It is not unique. As I said, we have instituted a cost-benefit study and we are engaged in examining the situation afresh. I am personally engaged in it. We shall continue to examine it with a view to reaching as early a decision as possible and one which—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at thirteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.