HURN AIRPORT (Hansard, 17 April 1973)

§ Mr. John Cordle (Bournemouth, East and Christchurch)

At this early hour I shall be as brief as possible, in order that the Officers of the House may not suffer too long, as I believe that the House did not rise last night until half-past 2 o'clock and it is now nearly a quarter to 2 o'clock.

It is proposed to extend the runways at Hum Airport and to develop the airport's ancillary services. These proposals have aroused a great deal of comment in the locality. At the outset, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to set up a 455 public inquiry into the matter, to give all interested persons and bodies an opportunity to propound their individual views. To the people of the Bournemouth area the subject of Hum Airport is of profound importance and it is essential that their views should be known and taken into account.

In our area we have felt acutely the redundancies created by the British Aircraft Corporation. Our fear is that if the Concorde and the F 1-11 do not find success even more families will be plunged into the despair of unemployment. In the Defence Estimates White Paper, recently published, the Government propose to close the Signals Research and Development Establishment, which means a further blow to Christ-church, for over 900 men will lose their jobs. It is intolerable that our area should be subjected to such massive unemployment.

I want to say something about the future development of the area, with special regard to the proposals for Hum Airport. I have no doubt that an extension of the runways would ultimately benefit the economic life of the surrounding district, but it would also mean a deterioration in the environmental qualities of the area. I should like to see an increase in the number of jobs without any appreciable interference with the beauty and attraction of the area. The first step towards that would be to sanction the development of an industrial estate at Hum. At present the Hampshire County Council says that only aircraft work and component manufacture is to be carried out at Hum. This re-struction must be abolished. The Government should encourage the setting up of such an estate, perhaps by issuing industrial development certificates.

Industrial units could easily be set up at Hum without harming the environment, as factories could easily be camouflaged and our roads are excellent. We have a reservoir of highly-skilled, conscientious workers, and they would make a success of such an enterprise.

With such an industrial estate, the case for extending the airport runways would, in the short term, recede. The extension would require greater ancillary services, providing jobs throughout the area. An 456 industrial estate would provide jobs, too, and without the aggravation of increased air traffic.

However, it is clear that a bigger airport could be of lasting benefit to the area, particularly from the tourism angle. In my view, Hum will have to be extended eventually to keep pace with aeronautics developments. The Ministry has recommended that the airport should remain operative for at least 20 years. It is only good sense that the airport should keep pace with the times and be an asset rather than a liability to its operators. Though I believe that we should preserve our precious environmental qualities, we cannot hide our heads in the sand and deny a hopeful future to the coming generation.

The question, then, is one of balance. Emotions have been roused in proponents and opponents of the extension. No one in his senses wants to increase the amount and frequency of aircraft noise, but unless Hum is allowed to progress it will die and be utterly worthless. Our area cannot afford to neglect such an asset or ignore its prospects.

Many people have moved to the Bournemouth area to enjoy a well-earned retirement. They are entitled to have the peace and quiet that they expected. If the airport is developed, it must be on lines acceptable to the people who will be affected by such development. I believe that the local population have no object-tion to an increase in daytime air traffic, but night flights will not be tolerated. We could take a leaf out of the European airports' books. Paris, Frankfurt and Brussels airports are closed from 11 p.m. until 7 a.m. Hum, with an extended runway, should have similar restrictions. Given safeguards as to noise and pollution, I think that the airport should be allowed to extend its runways. Such an extension would be a much-needed shot in the arm for the local economy, taken together with the industrial developments of which I have spoken.

Our area has tremendous expertise and renown in the running of ancillary services, such as hotels and restaurants. We can give of our best to provide the best. The area could become a centre for conferences. A larger airport could also bring in more tourists from the Continent, which would be of great benefit to our 457 area and the hinterland. If Hum could handle larger aeroplanes, and a goodly number of them, it would be one of our westernmost capacity airports and would be convenient for Wales, France, Spain and the United States of America.

The necessary development will cost a lot of money. I believe that the Government should provide most of it. Our area gets little enough in the way of aid and it is not too much to ask for this assistance.

I am concerned, too, about who should run the airport. It is my considered opinion that it should be run by Bournemouth. Bournemouth's population will be most affected, beneficially and detrimentally, and the borough has already paid half of the airport's cost. So far there have been large losses, and it is right that Bournemouth should have some profit from it in the future.

I think the Government were wrong not to include Hurn in the restructured Bournemouth, and that this situation should be reversed.

In the argument about the extension, one principle must be paramount. People matter most. People's homes, lives and jobs matter more than anything. I believe that it is not beyond our talents to find an acceptable solution to the question of Hurn Airport extension.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Cranley Onslow)

I shall try to match the commendable brevity with which my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christ-church (Mr. Cordle) has made his point, though I recognise that having waited till this late hour my hon. Friend is entitled to as full an answer as I can give him to the points he has raised. I know that he has been pursuing them since last autumn in correspondence and in meetings at my Department.

My hon. Friend will not mind my adding that his neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden), has also been taking a close and active interest in the problems of his area.

I fully appreciate the degree of local interest in the airport and its importance to the economy of the area, but in the first instance it is for the consortium of 458 Bournemouth and Dorset, which operates the airport, to decide how it wishes it to develop. As my hon. Friend knows, last September the airport management committee published for public consultation a report on airport development which set out alternative schemes for a runway extension as a first stage in its development. Before the constituent authorities considered these schemes observations were invited from interested organisations and individuals, and subsequently a series of public meetings was held at which those affected could make their views known.

In the meantime, the management committee has kept in close touch with the Civil Aviation Authority, which is now responsible for advising on the development of aerodromes to match the development of air services. The CAA has been providing technical aviation advice on the alternative schemes being considered as well as more general advice in the context of its formulation of a national strategy for airport development.

I understand that the management committee has not yet decided the final form which a runway extension scheme should take but that it expects shortly to make an application for planning permission. This will be for the local planning authority—the Hampshire County Council— to consider. If the matter is referred to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, he may call it in, and in that case, in view of the strength of local feeling, I have no doubt that a public inquiry would be held, at which all those affected would have ample opportunity to make their views known before any final decision was taken. The ultimate decision, following such an inquiry, would lie with my right hon. and learned Friend.

It would be wrong for me to prejudge the outcome of such an inquiry and I am sure, therefore, that my hon. Friend will understand that in these circumstances I am not in a position to comment on the merits of the alternative proposals which have been put forward, but I should like to deal with the unemployment position.

It is true that the British Aircraft Corporation is the largest employer in the area, and this is obviously important in the provision of job opportunities, but 459 the area has a wide employment base. There are other manufacturing employers in the area, and between them they account for more than 12,000 jobs. After allowing for some redundancies and natural wastage, there has been a net growth of 400 jobs within these firms over the last 12 months.

The BAC at Hum employs about 2,400 people. This is a drop from a figure of 4,500 at the beginning of 1970. The biggest drop was in 1971, but over the last year the net job loss, after allowing for redundancies and natural wastage, has been about 360. This is clearly a factor to be taken into account, and so is the transfer of the SRDE to which my hon. Friend referred. My understanding is that that involves the reduction of about 700 jobs, and this factor will be borne in mind when future industrial development certificate applications are considered, but before I come to deal with the question of IDCs I think that it might be helpful if I set the general scene for employment trends in the area.

In March 1973 unemployment totalled 3,760, or 3.4 per cent. This was the lowest March percentage since 1968, when it was 3.2 per cent., and in terms of actual numbers unemployed the lowest March figure since 1967. The March 1972 figure was 5,775, or 5.2 per cent. But to put these figures in their proper perspective it is necessary to recall that they include a large number of older men who have moved to the Bournemouth area in semi-retirement and do not in many cases wish to work again and can therefore be described as unemployed in a technical sense only.

I think that the following figures make that clear. In the South-East area as a whole, 20 per cent. of the male unemployed are aged 60 or over. In the Bournemouth area the figure is much higher—35 per cent. To complete the picture, the number of unfilled vacancies notified to the Department of Employment was 2,284 in March, and this figure still represents only a proportion of the total number of actual vacancies. It is nevertheless the highest March figure for the Bournemouth travel-to-work area for the last 15 years or more.

On the question of industrial development certificates, the sanctioning of indus- 460 trial development is a matter in the first instance for the local planning authority. Government policy on the issue of IDCs has been affirmed on several occasions. The IDC control does not apply to existing industrial premises. In Hampshire and the South-East generally the IDC exemption limit is now 10,000 sq. ft. When we took office the limit was 3,000 sq. ft. In the last year we have adopted a more flexible approach in considering IDCs for modernisation and efficiency schemes which involve some increase in employment. But the essential purpose of the IDC control under the Government's regional policies remains—that is, whenever it is reasonable to do so to try to divert new or substantial expansion of industry to the assisted areas which overall have the greater unemployment problems.

Second to that, we have to have regard to the needs of the new and expanding towns. Every IDC application made to the Department is nevertheless considered on its merits and the employment situation in the area is taken into account. In practice, in the Bournemouth travel-to-work area all the IDCs applied for in 1972 and the first two months of 1973 have been approved. Since the beginning of 1972, 27 applications were approved, up to the end of February 1973. The applicants estimated that the projects involved would, when completed and fully manned, provide 690 jobs, 570 of which would be for males.

Returning to matters associated with Hum Airport, my hon. Friend referred to the problem of controlling noise disturbance if the runway is extended. The management at Hum Airport currently operates a range of measures to deal with the aircraft noise problem, including minimum noise routes and a preferential runway system. No doubt the management would, in the event of any development of the airport, take adequate steps to adopt whatever measures seemed best to mitigate disturbance in the light of the changed circumstances. Many airports, including some in the United Kingdom, impose restrictions on movements of aircraft at night. It would be for the management of Hum to consider, after any extension of facilities, what regime to apply to night movements.

I should, of course, make it clear that I shall keep closely in touch with 461 developments at Hurn, and I would not hesitate to take appropriate action if I thought that the management was not taking all reasonable steps to control noise. Nevertheless, it is right to set it on record that Paris, Frankfurt and Brussels do not close at night, although there are restrictions on the movement of aircraft of varying severity, differing according to the types concerned. So, indeed, there are restrictions at major airports in our own country. I would utter a word of warning to my hon. Friend that the concept of night curfews is not consistent with the maximisation of airport development. It is much better to look forward to the time when the night hours can be confined to movements by quiet noise-certificated aircraft.

On the specific point my hon. Friend mentioned about a recommendation by my Department that the airport should continue in operation for 20 years, I assume that he is referring to the clauses in the conveyance and agreement governing the transfer of the airport to the local authorities which provide that my Department can repurchase the airport if it ceases to be licensed for public use within 21 years. This in no way binds my Department to support the extension of the airport, and we would not come to a decision on the issue of consent to borrow for such a scheme until planning permission had been obtained.

On the matter of future ownership of the airport following reorganisation of local government, the Department of the Environment, with which my Department is in close contact, is at present consulting local authorities on the vesting of aerodrome property. Subject to any new arrangements which the local authorities concerned may wish to make it is intended that aerodrome property, like that of other functions which will be exercised concurrently by both county and district authorities, will be vested in the successor authorities to the present owners. The new district of Bourne- 462 mouth can therefore be expected, if it wishes, to continue to retain an interest in the ownership and operation of the airport, although the detailed arrangements will of course be subject to the negotiation of a revised agreement with the new County of Dorset.

The inclusion of the site of the airport within the new district of Christchurch would not necessarily affect the decision on the ownership of the airport, as local authority powers extend to running airports outside their own areas.

Looking to the future, the prospects for the BAC Hum factory are not necessarily all gloom. The management does not expect any redundancies during 1973. The Government are continuing to give every support and encouragement to the Concorde sales programme. The same is true for the BAC 1-11, for which a number of hopeful sales possibilities exist.

Regarding my hon. Friend's final point about the importance of people in matters of this kind, I hesitate to disagree with him, but all too often, although homes, lives and jobs may matter more than anything, one man's interests conflict with another's. If I may adapt a phrase which used to be a favourite of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, namely, that one man's wage increase is another man's price increase, in matters of this kind, all too often one man's livelihood is another man's environmental nuisance. One man's job is another man's eyesore.

The Government's task, after the fullest inquiry and consultation, is to try to balance considerations of this kind in the best possible way. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that the record shows that the present Government are not wanting in understanding of the kind of issues that he has raised when the time for decision comes.