HC Deb 14 May 1973 vol 856 cc1000-3
10. Mr. Tebbit

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has received a copy of the CAA document "Forecasts of Air Traffic and Capacity at Airports in the London Area"; if he will publish it, or place a copy in the Library; and if he will make a statement.

33. Mr. Adley

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place in the Library a copy of the document "Forecasts of Air Traffic and Capacity at Airports in the London Area", produced by the Civil Aviation Authority.

Mr. Heseltine

I have received a copy of the CAA Report which was published on 8th May. A copy has been placed in the Library. I would refer my hon. Friends to my reply to a similar Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) on 8th May.— [Vol. 856, c. 206–13.]

Mr. Tebbit

I am sure that my hon. Friend would want to thank the CAA for making this document available to us all, because it demolishes the argument for Maplin on the ground of runway capacity. Will my hon. Friend answer two points? First, has he asked the British Airways Board for any estimate of the comparative noise levels in its projected 1980 fleet as against its present-day fleet? Secondly, does he agree that one major error in the CAA report is that it estimates that the first runway at Maplin will be open in 1980, whereas even he himself has now stopped promising it in 1980 and says that it will be open as soon as practicable?

Mr. Heseltine

We debated this matter on Second Reading and we dealt as fairly as we could with the opening date of Maplin. We gave it as our intention to work to 1980 as the opening date. As I said in my statement on 8th May, it is our intention to move ahead as fast as possible with the opening of Maplin airport and I see no reason to quarrel with that statement or the implications behind it. As for asking the British Airways Board for its estimate of the mix between its 1980 fleet and its present fleet, my hon. Friend surely agrees that this would give a misleading picture because we are dealing not simply with British Airways but with airlines all over the world.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield

Does not the Minister accept, as the CAA now says, that provided Southend and Stansted are kept open there will be nearly 20 per cent. spare runway capacity at London Airport until 1985? Does he not also accept that if there are to be substantial noise reductions for people in the vicinity of Heathrow and Gatwick, it will come not from Maplin but from quieter engines? Since privately, if not publicly, nobody in the British Airways Authority or in the British Airways Board is in favour of Maplin, will the Minister tell the House what private interests made it so necessary to railroad this project through.

Mr. Heseltine

I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman knows of any implications he will wish to name the interests so that everybody can then see what total rubbish his suggestion is. I shall deal with the two questions which the hon. Gentleman put to me. If he is saying that the official Opposition's policy as put forward by the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) is to cram all the growth of airlines of the world into the London Airport configuration, one will have runway capacity, although the report makes clear that there will not be the passenger handling capacity. If the choice which the Opposition wish to put to us is that we should abandon the prospect of a third London airport and develop existing airports, that alternative should be made clear so that other people may understand the dilemma. The Government, having considered that option, intend to press ahead with the development of Maplin airport as quickly as possible.

As for the second question, it is perfectly true that quieter engines will bring increasing relief, but there will still be in the 1980s a proportion of non-quiet engines; and secondly, undoubtedly—as the growth of the number of movements continues as the graphs indicate—the expectancy of people for yet quieter standards will become more pressing. It is right for the Government to take that into account today rather than in 1985.

Mr. Adley

Is my hon. Friend aware that this whole sordid venture of Foulness appears to a degree to be based on the stubborn refusal of the Government to recognise that there have been numerous changed factors since the Roskill Commission was set up? Does my hon. Friend accept or reject that the meeting between the Prime Minister and President Pompidou on regional policy in Europe is relevant to this situation? Does he accept or reject that the Channel Tunnel is in any way relevant to it? Does he not accept that there are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit) said, alternative versions of the CAA document rather than the one which he presented to the House? Finally, does he not agree that unless the Government are prepared to announce the closure of Gatwick and Heathrow, people living around those two airports will not benefit from noise reduction as a result of the building of an airport on the Essex marshes?

Mr. Heseltine

The fact is that one can persuade oneself that virtually every factor is in some way relevant to Maplin; but the regional factors have been carefully taken into account in the announcements we have made. The report makes clear that the decision to build the Channel Tunnel affects the need for Maplin by a year or two years. On the question of an alternative version of the report, the Chairman of the CAA, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has made it clear that there is only one version of the report, and that is the one by which he stands and is the report which has been given to the House. On the question whether we should move to a closure of Heathrow and Gatwick in terms of noise alleviation, the fact is that we see Maplin as one alternative in limiting the amount of noise increase at those airports.