BIRMINGHAM AIRPORT (Hansard, 7 July 1976)

§ Mr. Sydney Tierney (Birmingham, Yardley)

I take this opportunity of raising the future development of Birmingham Airport. Following the decision in 1974 to abandon the Maplin Airport project, the Department of Trade has produced reports on airport strategy for Great Britain. Report No. 1 was published in November 1975, and is primarily concerned with the airports in London and the South-East. Report No. 2, which was recently published, deals with regional airports outside the South-East and the part they can play in meeting local and national needs in future. It is suggested in the report that the use of Birmingham Airport could be substantially increased. It is said that there will be consultation on the way in which future air traffic in the United Kingdom should be handled.

I shall use this debate as a consultative device and as an opportunity to say something about the proposed development for Birmingham Airport. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade, the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis), is present on this occasion, because he was present on 20th March 1974 1549 when I made my maiden speech, when I raised the question of Birmingham Airport. My hon. Friend began to reply at 4.48 a.m. He said that no doubt he would hear from me again on the subject, and hoped that it would be at a more civilised time. I am sure that he will accept that this is a more civilised time.

The airport strategy document No. 2 provides a wide range of information about principal regional airports in England, Scotland and Wales. It examines how the various airports might develop and the implications of that development. In this short debate I shall deal with the future development of Birmingham Airport and its implications.

The Government are naturally concerned with a national and regional airport strategy and present powerful reports in support. Local authorities, such as the West Midlands County Council, which own and control airports such as Birmingham, are deeply involved in consultations about the future development of the airports they control.

In Birmingham and the West Midlands generally, chambers of commerce, industry and other business connections have vital interests in this development. They are well organised and well able to make strong representations.

No one objects to that, because they are quite normal activities, but although the report is clear that the assessment of aircraft noise and disturbance are major factors in considering airport developments, the residents who are affected by the aircraft noise in the vicinity are badly organised, least effective in presenting their case, and although they have a vital interest and involvement on a day-to-day basis, it is hard to persuade them that they are not being ignored. That is understandable, and that is the situation in Birmingham.

However, we are hoping to change that situation with the consultative document. I ask my hon. Friend to give residents in my constituency, and in others, who are not against airports as such but who are opposed to the anti-social menace that noise and disturbance bring into their homes, the opportunity to present their case effectively. I am grateful to him for the interest he has shown in the past and for the facilities that he has given to me and others in my con- 1550 stituency when we have seen him about the airport noise problem.

The report on Jumbo jets and extended runways has alerted residents. They have a strong and just case from an aircraft noise point of view and that must be acknowledged. Support is mounting. Residents' action groups are getting together and they are united in their position against the use of jumbo jets and the proposed extended runways. I am sure that their action will culminate in a powerful and effective lobby and I hope that everyone involved in the development of Birmingham Airport will pay clue regard to it.

Apart from the good offices of the Birmingham City Council, little effort has been made to monitor the noise levels or to highlight the problem. In 1973 the public health committee commissioned the University of Southampton Institute of Sound and Vibration Research to do a survey. It completed its report in 1973 and the health committee dealt with its findings in its own report of November 1973.

That report finished all conjecture about whether there was a noise problem, because its existence was firmly established in that report. The council made clear that some people in the vicinity of the airport were living in intolerable noise conditions and that there was a grave risk of hearing damage over a period of time.

The report made clear that no insulation would make those conditions tolerable. People in 120 properties were living in conditions that could be made tolerable only with 100 per cent. sound insulation grants. Another 1,500 properties needed 75 per cent. insulation grants to make life more tolerable for the families living in them. The report suggested that a school in the area under the flight path should be re-sited, but the only action taken was to close the school this year.

The report was made in 1973 but the situation has since deteriorated. The need for a sound insulation grant scheme was accepted and confirmed in 1973 and there is a greater need now. Noise insulation schemes will only make life more tolerable. They are not a complete solution. Only the control of noise at source will have a real and lasting effect.

1551 The argument about the noise and the problem of those residents who are worst affected has been going on in the area for a long time. It is reported that the chairman of the West Midlands County Council Airport Committee, which controls the airport, has made public estimates. He estimates that with 10 million passengers at Birmingham Airport by 1990 we are in for an income bonanza. He estimates that the duty free shop will take £1 million per year and that passenger service charges at £l.50 per head will bring in £15 million—and that is without landing charges.

I know the chairman of the committee to be a sensitive and responsible person, but if he does not wish to sound insensitive to the noise and pollution problems he should give complete estimates on all aspects. For example, he should estimate and publicise how much money is required to deal with some of the worst aspects of aircraft noise. He should estimate the numbers of people who are affected and what kind of scheme is desirable, bearing in mind the Manchester and London schemes. He should begin now to produce a blueprint in anticipation of obtaining the necessary parliamentary powers later this year. It would make up for time already lost and give some justice to many people who have been suffering the adverse effects of aircraft noise for many years. I appeal to my hon. Friend to urge the local authority to get on with producing a scheme. Help in this way for residents already affected is long overdue.

In Report No. 2 we are now being asked to consider the expansion of Birmingham Airport to major international status, a tenfold increase in passengers from 1 million to 10 million and a stepping up of aircraft movements from 20,000 to 75,000 a year, bringing 10,000 more people within the noise annoyance limits. Anyone who is not familiar with Birmingham Airport could be excused for wondering whether the strict confines and boundaries of the airport were caused by the airfield being placed too near the urban development or the urban development, mainly dwellings, being placed too near the airport.

Most of us are very good when it comes to hindsight, but the fact is that it is a pre-war airfield and the housing 1552 estates are post-war. Houses are still being built at the side of the school under the flight path which was closed. It is unbelievable that anyone would accept that, by plan, accident or design, and within such strict geographical confines, the airport could become a jumbo-sized international airport, without serious technical and social consequences.

Last year the Metra Consulting Group reported to the Civil Aviation Authority recommending that a new green field airport north-east of Birmingham should be developed in the central region of England. I believe that that was the ideal answer, but the scheme has been dropped.

When we read the latest report perhaps we can see why. The survey shows that Birmingham Airport serves a fairly well-defined local catchment area. It also shows that most regional airports have a history of unprofitability, with recessions in traffic. They have been over-optimistic in traffic forecasts and are over-capitalised and over-provided with facilities in relation to the levels of traffic achieved.

One significant finding for Birmingham is the statement that the availability of runway capacity is most unlikely to be a constraint at any regional airport in the foreseeable future.

The report establishes that there is a great deal of under-used airport capacity at regional airports, including Birmingham, I assume. Coupled with this is the present sensitivity about public expenditure and the heavy costs of new airport development.

It seems that the cheapest solution in terms of cost-benefit is to develop existing regional airports and avoid over-provision of airport facilities, which has occurred in the past. This is understandable in economic terms, but we must avoid the pitfall of not just using up the spare capacity, as could be done in Birmingham. We must try not to over-use the limited capacity that is available.

The debate about the future of Birmingham Airport is about whether to proceed by natural growth to 3 million passengers by 1990 with the improvement of terminal buildings and other facilities to provide better services for existing and future users. That would meet the needs of the region, and the new National Exhibition Centre, and enable the airport 1553 to become an airport of some significance, though primarily concerned with short and medium haul routes—a "European airport" is as near as I can define. On the other hand, in order to meet the needs I have just listed, plus the diverted traffic from Heathrow, Gatwick and other places in the South-East taking long haul routes, should it become an international or world airport with 10 million passengers by 1990?

There will be long and serious debate about the alternatives. Different views are held on the local authority by the leader of the council and the chairman of the airport committee. At least those differences have been publicised in the Press. No doubt those differences will have to be resolved.

It is my view that 10 million passengers by 1990 is an over-optimistic calculation as far as Birmingham is concerned. The estimated £100 million-plus capital investment—£8 million for an extended runway—would lead to over-provision of facilities in relation to the traffic levels achieved. I believe that there are serious technical problems for that sort of expansion in such strict geographical confines. Jumbo jets would create problems in terms of noise, pollution and the general environment. The area around the airport would be a nice place to live in as long as one could get away from it.

Over the years my own experience, through correspondence and interviews, is that many constituents are looking for alternative tenancies in other areas. Housing transfer applications are very high in the area and have been for a long time. Many owner-occupiers are stuck with houses that continue to drop in value. Generally speaking, many people complain that the noise gets them down.

We are told that quieter aircraft are on the way. Aircraft are not withdrawn from service because they are noisy: they are withdrawn when they are worn out, and this takes many years. Noisy aircraft will be with us for a long time yet. Quieter aircraft do nothing to ease the fears of people who are affected by low-flying aircraft and the disturbance that such aircraft create. Jumbo-sized proportions will do nothing to ease those fears.

1554 Future ownership of airports is also raised in the Report. I have no axe to grind about who will own Birmingham Airport in future. The Government want to develop their national airports strategy, and ownership of the regional airports will be a formidable advantage in determining policies at regional and national levels. The British Airports Authority is a Government-controlled body which already operates and controls some regional airports. The administrative body already exists and over £100 million of Government investment would give the Government a strong claim to operate Birmingham Airport in future.

It is my view that if Birmingham opted for the "natural growth" development, the more modest and acceptable, ownership would stay with the local authority. The local authority would retain control, determine the growth and respond to local needs. With Government ownership, the Minister and his Department would be under constant pressure, and that is understandable, to relieve the four big airports in London and the South-East.

The jumbo-sized problems with regard to noise, disturbance and pollution will be transferred to Birmingham and other regions. Ten thousand more people will be exposed to the social evil that aircraft noise can produce. Is the real answer for Birmingham, or indeed the country, a national and regional airport strategy?

It is said that evil, is not wholly evil; it is misplaced good. I can only say that there is much misplaced good in the intentions of those who would take us too far up the flight path of development at Birmingham Airport. There is too much of the optimistic ideals in the realms of the jumbo clouds. This is a matter that demands a practical feet-on-the-runway approach.

I appeal to the Minister, and any others who make decisions, not to give Birmingham more than it can cope with in airport development, both physically and technically, and, most important of all, in human terms. It would be intolerable and indefensible in social terms when measured in levels of civilised living. While we would all have to forgo the short-term prestige and pride that another Heathrow-type airport would bring 1555 to the city, we should earn the long-term gratitude of present and future generations living in close proximity to Birmingham Airport.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis)

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Tierney) has evinced a close interest in this matter—a matter which affects his constituents—ever since I have known him, from the time he came into the House in 1974. However, I fear that his requirement to go into the matter in rather great detail this morning has left me with somewhat inadequate time to respond to his various points.

The first matter to which he alluded was the consultative document which has been recently published on the future of regional airports in Great Britain, including Birmingham. I assure my hon. Friend that the consultative process which that document heralds is essential if we are to get our national airport strategy right. This is something which this country has needed for a long time and it has been neglected for far too long. That document, in conjunction with an earlier one dealing with the London area published last November, has set the scene for the involvement of all who are affected by airport development.

My hon. Friend asked who was to be consulted. The answer is that all people who have an interest in this matter are entitled to make their representations known to my Department. All those representations will be welcomed. We have no intention of restricting participation in the consultative process to those who are perhaps known as bodies which are capable of articulating their views. Ordinary citizens, such as those who came to see me led by my hon. Friend in July 1974, are just as much entitled to be heard, and I hope that they will use every possible opportunity to make their voices heard on these important matters.

The consultative process is important because past decisions on airport developments were often made without reference to the views of many of those affected. The result was that subsequent opposition and practical difficulties has led to delays and sometimes the need to withdraw the original decision. Secondly, there is a much greater awareness of the environ- 1556 mental impact of airport developments, It is therefore important that the expected effect of the developments should be displayed in advance of any decisions.

Thirdly, I hope that through the process of consultation both the Government and those consulted will learn a great deal more about the impact of airport developments. This is an important process through which we are now moving. I believe that if we involve the community as a whole, the ultimate result will be very much more effective, meaningful and better understood for everybody concerned.

We must remember that there is a penalty involving uncertainty and delay if one brings people into decision-making rather than if one takes the attitude that the man in Whitehall knows best. My hon. Friend knows that I certainly do not subscribe to that attitude.

The future of Birmingham Airport has to be considered in the context of these consultations. I stress to my hon. Friend that no decision about the future development of Birmingham Airport will be taken without regard to those consultations, or in advance of them. The various alternatives contained in the consultative document in no way reflect the Government's view. They are options put forward as a basis for discussion on the role of each regional airport with regard to local considerations and within a national context.

Being in the heart of the industrial Midlands and with the newly opened National Exhibition Centre, Birmingham Airport obviously provides an important transport facility for the area. The consultation document indicates two levels of development. A level of 3 million passengers by 1990, based on the natural growth of air traffic in the area, and a level of 10 million. This latter figure is not a forecast but has been adopted in order to analyse the implications on the environment, and particularly noise, of developing Birmingham into a major regional airport. It is very unlikely that a throughput of 10 million could be achieved by 1990. To that extent, the argument of my hon. Friend, although well put, was based in part on a misconception. The reason for choosing such a high figure was to ensure that those likely to be affected could see the very worst circumstances. So I hope that I have allayed his anxieties to some extent.

1557 I recognise that noise disturbance is a matter of particular concern to those living near airports, and we have to pay proper and due regard to those interests. I have tried to do that in the last two and a half years since I was appointed to my present job. I have to say to my hon. Friend that equally the increasing use of larger and quieter aircraft will lead to a smaller number of people being subjected to noise disturbance and that this is so in Birmingham for the forecast level of traffic of 3 million passengers in 1990. At the level of 10 million passengers, involving nearly a fourfold increase in air traffic, there would, of course, be some increase, but that is an unlikely prognosis. Even so, compared with Heathrow and with other regional airports numbers are small, but we are deeply concerned about the people affected.

Perhaps I may turn in my last few moments to noise insulation grants, which my hon. Friend also mentioned. Most of the busy airports have such a scheme, including Manchester and Luton as well as Heathrow and Gatwick, but we think that noise abatement measures of all kinds are best handled at local level, and in consultation with the people who reside near the airport so that they can be responsive to local needs. For this reason we do not think it is right to designate Birmingham under Section 29 of the Civil Aviation Act.

1558 I shall not rehearse the argument because I canvassed it fully in our last debate when I had more time. However, I must point out to my hon. Friend—and he recognises it very well—that it is for the West Midlands County Council to promote a Private Bill to give itself the necessary powers. Such a Bill was promoted earlier in the Session, but was lost. The best prospect now for providing Birmingham Airport with a scheme for noise grants at an early date must be for the county council to promote fresh private legislation, and I understand that it is considering that.

I have only about half a minute left so perhaps I may conclude by saying that I am always accessible to my hon. Friend if he wishes to make representations with which I cannot deal in so short a time this evening. I welcomed the opportunity to meet some of his constituents and we got on well. I was able to offer them some words of advice and help, which they were able to accept.

If my hon. Friend feels at any time that he needs to discuss these matters with me outside the Chamber, I shall be only too happy to oblige him. He has shown proper concern on behalf of his constituents. I appreciate that as the Minister concerned, because I know that those constituents are in good hands.