HC Deb 12 February 1971 vol 811 cc1161-72

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

4.11 p.m.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Bradford, East)

I am glad to have this opportunity to raise a matter of widespread, local and constituency concern. I refer to the future of our local airport at Yeadon. The economy of the whole textile district of the West Riding of Yorkshire is experiencing a decline which causes wide-spread anxiety. Unemployment has risen, earnings are low, and we are an exporting region depending on our trade. A viable local airport is most important to our economic prosperity and future.

In the Yorkshire and Humberside Regional Strategy published last autumn reference was made to the dangers of a cumulative economic decline in the Halifax and Bradford areas. Paragraph 199 said: Continued local initiative will be necessary to promote industrial investment in the area and to ensure that adequate sites and services are available for efficient industrial operations. One of the services which I would claim to be essential is effective, modern, air transport. The Regional Strategy makes that plain. Paragraph 260 says: Airport development and air services, like the ports, are largely of inter-regional—indeed international—significance, but they are also important regionally. The airport at Yeadon and the air services operated there are important to the region's economy. In our view this is an essential requirement which must continue to be satisfied, even though with advances in air transport, changes may be inevitable. One of the most dramatic changes in modern air transport has been the advent of the service of pure jet air liners. A report sponsored by the West Riding County Planning Department and pub- lished by Alan Stratford and Associates in June, 1967, said that this change was recognised. They pointed out that there were only two existing civil airports in Yorkshire which maintained scheduled services, the first at Brough, whose future is jeopardised by the construction of a large chimney in the neighbourhood. and the other at Yeadon, the Bradford Airport. The second paragraph says: The development of Yeadon so as to permit jet operations within two years is essential to the continued growth of air transport communication to and from the West Riding. I submit that that has been more than borne out by the statistics.

In October of last year it was decided by the Secretary of State for the Environment that planning permission to extend the runway at Leeds/Bradford Airport would not be granted. The Leeds/Bradford joint airport committee considered the impact that this would have on the future of the airport. After a full discussion the committee, whilst deprecating the negative decision decided that the airport should remain open for the time being. That is what the secretary of the joint committee told me in a letter on 17th November, 1970. In other words, the long-term future of our airport was at risk, and they would have to evaluate future traffic trends to decide whether to maintain services from Leeds/Bradford.

Airport policy should be taken in a national context. If any lesson is clearly to be derived from Roskill, and from the narrow terms of reference, that is the lesson, and in the letter which accompanied the decision of the Secretary of State for Environment, reference was made to the potential of Ringway Airport for increased air traffic and also to the possibility of a new regional airport at Thorne Waste.

As to the first of those two possibilities, Ringway, this is seriously congested. The fact was brought to the attention of the court of inquiry that the management of Ringway Airport looks to Leeds/Bradford with Liverpool as airports to which it can divert excess traffic.

As for Thorne Waste, this is an imaginative concept which I, with others, have canvassed. It is a very long way off. It is perhaps no accident that during the war many bomber bases were built all round Snaith, Lindholme and Finningley, all quite near, but none in the peat wastes of Thorne Waste, because it was realised that it would be exceedingly expensive, and a lengthy process.

It is essential to look at airport planning in the national context and there are two early day Motions, Nos. 234 and 206 in my name to bring this fact to the attention of the House. It was reinforced by the Report of the Wing Action Group, the first paragraph of which says that the recommendation for Cublington has been made without there being any national airport policy. It goes on to say that this "national airport policy is required if there is not to be a grave danger of creating a further imbalance between the various regions of the country.

"That is just what is occurring. We are likely to be, from the point of view of air communications and air transport the most under privileged major region in the country, and yet we are probably one of the most important exporting areas of Britain. As I have said on other occasions we are at the industrial heart of the nation and the wool textile trade alone exports £160 million worth of goods annually. Engineering which is our second most important industry is also export oriented. In fact on the south side of Yeadon Airport there is the Hepworth and Grandage Turbine Division which has been in the news recently with the confusion over Rolls-Royce.

Whether one looks at airports in the national context or other aspects of aviation such as Rolls-Royce, another lesson to be derived is that we must make the maximum use of existing capital resources. In other words, we must develop to the full potential existing airports and this is what we should be doing with Leeds/Bradford.

The Yorkshire Conservative Members went to a meeting convened by the Leeds/Bradford Airport Joint Committee on 6th January, 1971, and Alderman Behrens, who is chairman of the Joint Committee, pointed out a few things which should be known. Aer Lingus has indicated that it will cease operations out of the airport after two winters unless it can maintain very high load factors. Aer Lingus operates Boeing 737 aircraft which cannot fly into Yeadon in all-weather conditions. Aer Lingus has to accept a penalty on the load factor, and this is likely not to be an economic proposition in the long term.

British Midland plans to continue Viscount operations for another three years. This operator runs a service to Glasgow. but its Viscounts are to be phased out after that period. North-East, which is our main operator, accounting for 70 per cent. of the traffic and providing the vital scheduled service to London, is also to phase out its Viscounts. Although it is looking at other equipment and will make known its plans in March this year, pure jet airliners have the greatest passenger appeal. The BAC111 cannot operate out of Leeds/Bradford without incurring a penalty. The 475 version is expensive. It does not have the capacity of the 500 series version, and it can take only 86 passengers. Therefore, for the immediate future, that is not necessarily the best possibility.

The traffic statistics are gloomy. There has been a marked fall-off in passengers and freight over the past few years. Taking into account that Leeds-Bradford had, over the previous 10 years, experienced the fourth greatest increase in passenger traffic of any airport in the country and the sixth biggest increase in freight, this shows that a large potential is not being realised.

I must refer to the protests which I have received about the decision not to extend the runway and make clear the widespread concern felt in my area about the future of the airport.

Queensbury and Shelf Council has been in touch with me, apart from the Bradford Council. A number of people and organisations have been in touch with me—Thermotank Products of Rodley, from Guiseley, at the end of the runway, the Guiseley Conservative Association and many others, including a constituent,Mr. O'Connell, and, perhaps, most significant of all, two people from Luton, who feared, I think understandably, that if inclusive tour and charter traffic operating out of Yeadon had to go elsewhere they would experience the effect of extra air movements in inclusive tour and charter travel.

This is an important matter apart from the scheduled traffic. Why should people in Yorkshire have to go a long way to start their holidays? As I have said, earnings in the area are low. People work hard in uncomfortable, dirty conditions. Why should they have to travel all the way to Teesside, Luton, Manchester or Liverpool at extra trouble, cost and inconvenience to begin a holiday which they deserve to be able to begin on their doorstep?

A lesson of the Roskill Report—and its recommendations show this—is that easy access to an airport is essential. Leeds-Bradford is an excellent airport which represents £2,750,000 worth of ratepayers' money and which is seven miles from the centre of both cities. If people say to me, "But the noise will be tremendous", I say that if the runway is extended it will be possible, in clear air conditions, to take off to the north-west, which is the least populated direction. It will bring an additional safety factor.

With regard to the number of complaints made about aircraft noise over the past five years, it was only while the Court of Inquiry's findings were being analysed by the Ministry that—surprise, surprise—all the complaints came in. The year before, in 1969, there had been 126 Executive jet movements, approximately one-third of the Executive jet movements in 1970, and yet there has not been a single complaint. I do not believe that that is an accident. Aer Lingus are operating jets on scheduled services in and out of Leeds-Bradford since the decision not to extend the runway. These jets have to use a lot of power to get off because the runway is short and their operation that much more difficult. In spite of that there has been no complaint at all.

The airport has been built up at the ratepayers' expense, unlike Newcastle and Manchester, which get a Government grant. We have done this out of our own efforts, and deserve to get a commensurate return. We have already the facilities of a new airport traffic radar control system.

We get virtually no grant from the Government although the Government provide a grant for half the cost of two new fire tenders. There is a widespread hope of a new application for planning permission which might be favourably looked at on operational and economic grounds.

As the Bradford Telegraph and Argus said: Leeds Bradford could become the only picnic site in the north of England equipped with an instrument landing system. That, I suggest, is no laughing matter. The people of that area live by trade and industry. During the inquiry 17 days were taken up by noise question and only six with economic operational arguments.

For all these reasons I am glad to have had this opportunity to bring this matter to the attention of the House.

4.27 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant)

I have listened with interest to the points raised this afternoon by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) who, I know, has a special interest and expertise in aviation matters in addition to his constituency interest in the future of Leeds-Bradford Airport. I know, too, that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Sir D. Kaberry) and other hon. Members who represent constituencies in that area have their own interests in this problem, and have, indeed, expressed their views.

Before replying to my hon. Friend's powerfully expressed arguments, I must first remind the House that the responsibilities of my Department do not extend to planning matters, which, so far as England and Wales are concerned, are the sole responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I cannot say that I am speaking for my right hon. Friend, although I hope that where I venture into his area of responsibility he would agree with what I say.

I described the hon. Member's arguments as powerfully expressed, but he would, I am sure, not expect me to agree with all the points that he has made.

The case for or against allowing the extension of the main runway at Leeds-Bradford Airport was, like so many decisions in Government, an arguable one. Indeed, it was argued at great length for the 23 days of the public inquiry in December, 1969, and January and February, 1970. Supporters of the runway extension, as well as opponents, had a full chance to make their views known in detail—as many of them did, to considerable effect. The effect on the economy of the surrounding area of Yorkshire, the technical implications of the extension, the commitment of local authority investment in the airport and the financial implications of the extension were all considered in detail during the course of the inquiry.

It is generally accepted that there was a reasonably strong aviation case for the runway extension. My own Department gave it as its considered opinion at the inquiry that as at present advised they consider that an extension to runway 33/15, as proposed by the Leeds/Bradford Airport Joint Committee, will be needed if the airport is to be able to deal with likely increases in traffic and, in particular, with the operation of more demanding aircraft which will probably use Leeds/Bradford Airport". I cannot agree with my hon. Friend that there was any inconsistency between this evidence and the decision following the inquiry. The Department's evidence was expert advice given on the basis of the facts then known and before evidence of objectors to the extension had been heard. The need for the extension had to be balanced against the aircraft noise that might result from the use of the extended runway.

In all these matters, where as on the one hand we might give expert advice on particular points, it is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to sit in a quasi-judicial manner to make the ultimate decision. He is guided by the inspector who, in his report on the inquiry, drew attention to the difficulty of differentiating between the level of noise which might arise from the use of the existing runways and that which could be caused by the use of the airport with the extended main runway. It was concluded by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that the extension could lead to uses which could increase noise to a serious extent. It was also considered impracticable in this case to impose planning conditions relating to noise monitoring or to the testing and running of engines. It was therefore concluded that in this case the imposition of planning conditions to control and limit noise nuisance could not be effective.

While obviously meriting the most careful consideration, the case in economic and social terms for airport developments must be weighed against the equally pressing need to conserve the environment either to protect the peace of those living in heavily populated areas or to preserve the countryside. Having concluded that the case for the extension did not outweigh the environmental damage that would result, the Government would have been clearly failing in their duty to have allowed the proposals.

The decision by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is final. The planning application has been determined and the inquiry cannot be reopened.

My hon. Friend mentioned the possibility of a new planning application. It would certainly be possible for the Airport Committee to make another planning application at some time in the future. But before doing so I would suggest that they would be well advised to consider carefully whether the circumstances in which their recent application was turned down have altered to any appreciable extent.

I must say that I do not entirely share my hon. Friend's pessimism about the present prospects for Leeds/Bradford Airport. The immediate situation is no different than it would have been if the runway extension had been approved——

Mr. Wilkinson

Does not my hon. Friend agree that in the past air passenger traffic at Leeds-Bradford has fallen by 9 per cent., whereas nationally it has risen by 11 per cent.? There has also been a decline in freight traffic. Taken together, these factors show the impact of not allowing the extra runway extension to be granted, and the deleterious effect of the maintenance of turbo-prop operations as opposed to pure jet operations on traffic.

Mr. Grant

I am not in a position to challenge my hon. Friend's precise figures. I am sure that they are correct, and I would only say that if that is the case it is no doubt a powerful argument that he will be able to put before an inspector if a fresh application is made. I was referring to the need not to be too pessimistic.

The airport committee and the airline operators have made clear that the airport will continue to operate as usual. I understand that the airport commandant has estimated that by 1975 the airport will double the number of passengers handled. The airport clearly has a useful role for domestic services. Tentative plans being considered by some operators for feeder services using lightweight aircraft could augment this role. Further development of aircraft with improved performances may enable the operation of business flights to Europe and even holiday flights. There is, in fact, every indication that the airport will continue as a useful facility for the West Yorkshire conurbation and the surrounding area.

Nor do I consider that West Yorkshire is badly served for international air services. The major airport at Manchester is within comparatively easy reach. I know that my hon. Friend was slightly pessimistic about the situation at Manchester Airport. I can tell him that the Yorkshire and Humberside Economic Planning Council, which considered this question in the light of the Leeds/Bradford decision, concluded that since there was no evidence that Manchester Airport would reach saturation before the 1980s there was no urgent need to study alternative sites for airports east of the Pennines. Furthermore, on this point, I told the hon. Member for Normarrton (Mr. Albert Roberts) on the 18th January that developments currently proposed by Manchester Corporation will enable the airport to cope with much more traffic than it does at present and to meet demand until at least 1982.

Mr. Wilkinson

Has my hon. Friend ever tried driving across the Pennines, albeit on the M62, on an icy, misty winter morning and ending up on the North side of Manchester and having to go across the City to Ringway? In answer to me, the Secretary of State said that the hypothetical question of another runway at Ringway was not taken into consideration when he made his decision about the proposed runway extension at Leeds/Bradford.

Mr. Grant

I have driven across the Pennines late at night. It was not a very pleasant experience, but on the other hand my hon. Friend is over pessimistic about this. In terms of travelling time, if one accepts my argument about Manchester Airport, this puts West Yorkshire nearer to an expanding major airport than is much of the overcrowded southeast of England, which I know so well. Many who live in areas exposed to the noise of jet aircraft would consider this degree of separation, albeit having to struggle through Manchester on wet mornings, a fair price to pay for being free from noise and disturbance.

My hon. Friend also referred to the question of Thorne Waste near Goole as a possibility for another airport site. In view of the Roskill Commission's Report and the fact that we are proposing to debate the whole question in the not too distant future, he would not expect me to go into very great detail in that respect. There are conflicting views. I should not like to say whether they are equal one way or the other, 50–50, or how they are balanced on the questions of conservation and extended use of the airways. Nevertheless, they are there and there was a very full opportunity, under a completely impartial inspector, to consider all arguments put both ways. This has taken place. The duty my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, faced with the evidence given to him by his inspector, was to make a decision which he considered in the best and broadest interests of the locality and the people there as a whole. This he has done. For the foreseeable future, in light of this, I believe that the Leeds/Bradford Airport remains capable of fulfilling a useful role in the air transport system of this country. I understand clearly the anxieties of my hon. Friend and of the people who he represents, who take one side of the argument. It is open to them to make a fresh application provided they are careful to indicate clearly the new circumstances which have arisen since the last inquiry.

In view of what my hon. Friend has said, if a fresh application is put forward, no doubt he will be able to put forward all these factors for the inspector's consideration. But I ask the people of Yorkshire to bear in mind the needs of conserving the peace and quiet of the neighbourhood in which they live, as well as the commercial and financial implications of the decision made on the Leeds/Bradford Airport.

I do not think that I can add any more, except to say that I have found this a useful debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend for expressing one side of the argument so clearly and forcefully.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Five o'clock.