HC Deb 13 May 1986 vol 97 cc679-86

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

12.11 am
Mr. Nicholas Soames (Crawley)

I am very grateful for this opportunity to debate the Heathrow to Gatwick helicopter airlink. It is an issue of profound importance to my constituents.

The licence was originally granted to British Caledonian Airways Ltd. and British Airways Helicopters Ltd. for one year only in 1978. A new application was granted in 1979 for four years. In 1983, British Caledonian and British Airways Helicopters Ltd. jointly applied to continue the service for a further 10 years. The Civil Aviation Authority granted the application on 1 February 1984, but, on 10 June 1984, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport directed the CAA to vary the licence so that it would terminate four months after the M25 motorway between Reigate and Wisley was opened.

On 21 November 1985, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State issued a direction to the CAA that, if the licence did not expire first, it should be revoked from 7 February 1986. British Caledonian applied for deletion of this note in the licence requiring it to cease operations.

The four conditions of this licence, which have remained unchanged since it was originally granted in 1978, are onerous. None of them is normally found in CAA licences for air transport operations, but they were considered necessary by the CAA in view of the particular nature of the operation.

In November and December 1985 the CAA held a hearing that lasted for 16 working days to deal with the application. In reaching its decision, the CAA took into account many factors and heard many witnesses who fully represented the views of the operators and the objectors. In its decision, handed down on 4 February 1986, it considered at great length the legal framework, the economic arguments, costs, revenue implications, airline competition and airports policy, the users, the choice between Airlink and Speedlink, the M25 motorway, the environment and the disturbance caused to it, present and proposed routes and the minimisation of disturbance. It acted as the responsible, expert body that it undoubtedly is.

Having considered all the arguments for and against the continuation of this important service, the CAA concluded that Airlink should continue with effect from such date as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State notified it. The CAA accordingly gave notice to the Secretary of State of its decision, and the Secretary of State indicated that he would need some time to consider the matter. However, before he had stated his position, in accordance with the earlier directive on the licence, the service ceased on 7 February this year.

The Secretary of State then invited representations from involved parties to the CAA's decision. The operator's own representation stressed the low number of relevant written objections and of non-Airlink incidents, the general misconceptions about the matter, the possibility that the joint local authorities' objections had not been based on proper advice and the exaggerated effects of Airlink on the environment.

British Caledonian pointed out that it had offered new routes and altitudes to reduce environmental impact on particular areas at its own instigation and not as a CAA requirement. following earlier discussions between some of the objectors and Airlink staff. British Caledonian welcomed the M25 but questioned its ability to provide a suitable route both now and in the future—a question subsequently entirely justified by experience.

Further, the CAA in its earlier decision had agreed that travel by road remained an imperfect substitute for many Airlink passengers. British Caledonian pointed out that Speedlink could not possibly match the Airlink service, was not a suitable alternative and could never achieve the competitiveness needed by the London airports system.

Since its inception in 1978, the Airlink service has become a vital element in the London airports system. It has earned £10.5 million directly and £100 million in interline revenue for the London airports. Airlink has created 62 jobs and carried 600,000 passengers. I estimate that nearly half the existing passengers will in future avoid London if Airlink ceases—a potential loss of revenue to British Caledonian of £5 million to £6 million, and of about £14 million to United Kingdom airlines overall.

The management of British Caledonian—I am inclined to agree—believes that Airlink is being used as a scapegoat for environmental objections. The Government have paid scant regard to environmental objections to the Channel tunnel, with wide compulsory purchase powers being granted for land purchase. My right hon. Friend has suddenly adopted what appears to me to be a pious attitude to a service to which the environmental objections are questionable, and which produces much income for the United Kingdom in terms of tourist traffic and the utilisation of the London airports.

Motorway access is already proving unsatisfactory, especially at peak times in the morning and afternoon, which already coincide with airline peak times. The M25 is already heavily congested and Surrey police have now observed that, when a blockage occurs on the M25 in peak times, it creates a one-mile tailback in four minutes.

Traffic levels are now three or four years in advance of predicted levels, and in a year or two they will increase to a wholly unacceptable and extreme level. A blockage is now normal every day during morning and afternoon rush hours, yet the Minister is suggesting that Airlink should wait a year or two to see what the traffic position will be. The United Kingdom tourist industry cannot and will not thrive on such extraordinary complacency. If the Minister is so convinced that the motorway is adequate, he should see for himself the congestion at peak hours. He would then realise the deep anger and frustration felt by anyone with an urgent connection to catch at Gatwick or Heathrow.

I come now to the disparities between Gatwick arid Heathrow in the number of destinations operated. The frequency of services from Gatwick is inferior to Heathrow. Gatwick has 115 destinations, Heathrow 223—almost twice the number. The connecting helicopter service greatly reduces the impact of that imbalance.

The Government's twin White Papers on airline competition and airports policy set out a future in which Government support for the commercial development of aviation business would be strong, would develop and would build up competition. They envisaged a twin airports system and effective competition with foreign airlines. How is the Airlink decision helpful to British aviation in the light of those White Papers? Airlink was described in the BAA's 1978 report and accounts as: the symbol of London's twin airports policy. Surely, in Industry Year of all years, the Government should not have a policy of frustrating transport links.

This decision will end the productive and useful employment of a number of people. I should warn the House that, in my judgment, many more jobs are less secure because of what will prove to be a serious loss of revenue to British Caledonian.

The Minister's decision ignores the efforts made to meet objections in terms of changes of routeing and flights at higher altitudes. The environmental disturbance relating to that single source has been grossly overstated. Airlink represents only 20 per cent. of total helicopter movements in the west London area.

The French have an Airlink service between the Paris airports, despite the peripherique motorway. The cities of Tokyo and New York have helicopter linking services. Indeed, a British helicopter links Wall street with the New York airports. Houston has just introduced a city link helicopter service, for which landing fees have been waived for a specific period. Concorde aircraft do not meet any of the current noise requirements, yet they are permitted to operate charter flights from London Heathrow.

Surely it is discrimination of the worst possible kind when the S61 aircraft, which meets all the current and proposed noise emission standards for helicopters, is denied permission to operate. Where is the equity in that? Before the CAA, there were paraded a large number of professional witnesses who gave objective evidence on noise. Why, if the environmental issue was such a prime requirement, was that expert evidence ignored? Why has the Minister substituted his own beliefs for the expert evidence of others? The Secretary of State knows that a surface connection can never match the Airlink, and that the significant benefits of an airside connection will be lost.

The Speedlink coach service between 8 February and 3 May this year operated at about a 15 per cent. load factor. It carried, on average, six passengers per journey, at a time when there was no competition from Airlink, which stopped on 7 February. Before it stopped, Airlink, in competition with Speedlink, was operating at 50 per cent. load factors. The figures speak for themselves. How long will the Speedlink service continue at those passenger levels? Will my hon. Friend the Minister take steps to ensure that it continues?

Finally, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider carefully why British Caledonian needs this operation. He must ask himself why a private carrier would have fought so hard for so long—since 1978—and would have attracted so much adverse publicity at such considerable cost to itself in terms of time, effort and money, to operate the Airlink, unless it seriously and conscientiously believed in the route and its value and profitability—an objective endorsed by many respected users and organisations, including the Air Transport Users Committee.

British Caledonian has a record of successful operations. It has consistently made a profit. It creates jobs and provides a valuable boost to the United Kingdom economy. Is it right that, when it has suffered several times recently because of events over which it has no control, the Government now reward its endeavours by restricting it yet further? I greatly hope that my hon. Friend will, in equity and in accordance with Government aviation policy, permit the service to resume at once.

Sir Peter Hordern (Horsham)

rose

Mr. Robert McCrindle (Brentwood and Ongar)

rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)

Order. I assume that the two hon. Gentlemen seeking to participate have the consent of both the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) and the Minister.

12.23 pm
Sir Peter Hordern

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) on choosing this subject, and on the forceful way in which he has put his case.

I feel sorry for British Caledonian that it has been treated so harshly. It could have expected and should have received much better treatment from the Government. It needed the helicopter link to continue its operations, and the Government should have allowed it much more time to experiment with different height levels to see whether the environmental objections could be overcome.

I am surprised at the decision of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, considering his decision about the Channel tunnel. We were told that it did not matter if a service was to be provided across the Channel, and was to be built by private enterprise. Environmental issues were swept to one side. He was in favour of an improvement in services for passengers who wished to cross the Channel. But this helicopter link will no longer be available to those who like to use Gatwick or Heathrow airports, and must change flights rapidly. That is sad.

In announcing this change in a written answer, my right hon. Friend said that he was minded to make the change because of the improved motorways and the improved coach services, which would be able to ply so rapidly between Heathrow and Gatwick. The London Standard said this evening that the Surrey police have said that traffic using the motorway between Heathrow and Gatwick can at times tail back 10 miles from the M25-M3 interchange, while a 14-mile tail back in the M3 traffic waiting to join the M25 has been recorded. Anyone who has experienced delay on the M25 can but wonder at the decision by my right hon. Friend.

As for using the motor coaches, and the new rapid means of transport that the M25 will allow, that can be described only as a figment of the imagination. This is sad decision, but I noticed that my right hon. Friend said that he would allow time for experiment, and if it were found that the transport difficulties in getting from Heathrow to Gatwick were great, he would consider allowing the helicopter link to return. I hope that his decision will be reversed soon.

12.26 am
Mr. Robert McCrindle (Brentwood and Ongar)

As a consultant to British Caledonian, I know that the airline considers the helilink to be a vital element in developing services at Gatwick in competition with British Airways. The House will recall that that is basis of the Government's aviation policy, as outlined in a White Paper 18 months ago. The decision that we are debating places a major impediment on British Caledonian in achieving the Government's objective.

All other cities with two or three airports are linked by helicopter, including Paris, New York and Tokyo. That shows that in other countries, although the same environmental consideration must surely apply, there is a considerable understanding of the need, when advancing aviation, to have such a helicopter link.

Whether or not we like it, the first class and business class passengers, which all airlines must attract if they are to maximise their revenue, simply will not use a coach service. The fact that they have to check in and out of customs and immigration if they are travelling from one airport to the other by road, which is not necessary with the helicopter link, undoubtedly reduces the ability of British Caledonian to continue to provide a competitive service.

Another small matter that may have been overlooked by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in reaching his decision is that in airline timetables throughout the world it is possible to include the time for a link run by a helicopter but not to include a coach service link.

The impression has been given that, as a result of the decision, the people immediately below the flight path of the British Caledonian helilink will be free from noise. However, it is estimated that no more than 20 per cent. of the total noise created by helicopters is created by this one. Even after the decision, some 80 per cent. of the noise will continue to be experienced. It is a pity that so much of the noise appears to be blamed on the British Caledonian helilink when private helicopters will continue to create a noise.

I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is well disposed to British Caledonian, and that he has frequently expressed considerable admiration for the way in which it has triumphed through many difficulties, and is now in a relatively profitable condition. I appeal to him. We need more than words—we need action. That action could, with great advantage, be an announcement by him to reconsider this decision, which flies in the face of all that British Caledonian has sought to do in recent years.

12.29 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Michael Spicer)

My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) has been as eloquent and vigorous in support of his constituents' interest as he always is. In this case, he has emphasised the employment opportunities offered by British Caledonian. On that and other matters, my hon. Friend has been ably supported by my hon. Friends the Members for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) and for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern).

I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley said about the importance and excellence of British Caledonian. My hon. Friends have argued strongly for the retention of the helicopter link between Heathrow and Gatwick airports. I have to say what I am sure they already know—that many other hon. Members have argued no less passionately in the House and outside that the helicopter link should cease. The future of the helicopter link has become a highly controversial issue, the resolution of which was bound to invoke the anger of one side or the other.

The number of representations clearly illustrates the strength of feeling on both side about the issue. After publishing the application, the Civil Aviation Authority received 2,225 objections, of which 949 were within the deadline allowed by the regulations. At the hearing, the authority heard British Caledonian and the Air Transport Users Committee in support of the application, as well as 25 parties representing objectors. In addition, we have received about 1,000 representations, including many hon. Members, local authorities, airlines, airports, residents' associations, other local bodies and members of the public. We have received two petitions—one in support of the helicopter link and one opposed to it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have met two deputations of hon. Members—again, one in support of the link and one opposed to it.

There has therefore been no shortage of information on which to base a decision. Naturally, we considered very carefully the Civil Aviation Authority's decision to grant British Caledonian's application, as well as the evidence submitted to the Authority, the transcript of the public hearing, and the representations made to us.

The decision which my right hon. Friend now has to take is whether to specify a date for the resumption of the Heathrow-Gatwick helicopter link, or whether instead to direct the Civil Aviation Authority not to issue a licence for the service in order to prevent the environmental disturbance caused by the helicopter. In reaching this decision, my right hon. Friend has to weigh the environmental disturbance against the economic benefits of allowing the helicopter link to continue, and this must include an evaluation of the alternatives available to passengers who wish to travel between Heathrow and Gatwick.

I shall deal first with the question of environmental disturbance to which the Civil Aviation Authority cannot give the same weight as the Secretary of State for Transport. Without doubt, there is widespread and intense opposition to the helicopter link on the grounds of the environmental disturbance that it causes. This opposition has been increased by two aspects of the present application. First, the proposal to operate the helicopter link over three routes has increased the number of people who will be affected by the environmental disturbance. Secondly, the firm expectation following from a previous decision that the helicopter link would cease four months after the opening of the M25; has produced dismay and anger among those who thought that the issue could not be re-opened. We are conscious that some of the claims about the environmental disturbance caused by the helicopter have been exaggerated—this point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley—but. even after making full allowance for this consideration, it remains the case that the helicopter link has caused, and would continue to cause, widespread and genuine annoyance and distress.

I now turn to the economic benefits of the helicopter link between Heathrow and Gatwick. We accept that British Caledonian, as well as other British airlines and the airports, earn valuable revenue from passengers interlinking over the London airport system. If such passengers are to continue to be attracted to the London airports system, there must be fast, frequent, comfortable and reliable links between Heathrow and Gatwick. Good links between the two airports will expand the choice of services available to travellers with their origins or destinations in the United Kingdom by enabling them to regard services from Heathrow and Gatwick as alternatives.

There is no doubt that, in the past, the helicopter link between Heathrow and Gatwick has proved a valuable facility for passengers wishing to travel between the two airports. But the value of the helicopter link has been reduced now that the M25 has opened up motorway travel between the airports. If I have time I shall address myself to the effectiveness of that motorway link.

The speedlink coach service, operated by London Country, provides a frequent service with a high standard of comfort on board the coach as well as dedicated lounges at the airport terminals. London Country also operates the cheaper, but still direct, Jetlink 747 service. Alternatively, passengers can make use of the taxis and self-drive hire cars. Some may now find it more attractive to use their own cars.

These services and facilities offer travellers between the two airports a good choice of speed, comfort, convenience and price. We accept that continuing the helicopter link would expand this choice still further. In particular, we recognise the convenience to interlining passengers of an airside to airside helicopter service. But we believe that the wide range of alternatives to the helicopter should prove acceptable to the majority of travellers between the airports, and we hope that certain improvements to them will enhance their attractiveness to interlining passengers.

It may be that a few interlining passengers will be discouraged from using the London airports system because of their own perceptions of road transport or because a few connections which were possible by helicopter will not be possible by road, or because with the helilink they are able to change airports without going through customs or immigration.

We have looked very carefully at the various estimates of how many interlining passengers might be lost to British Caledonian and other British airlines, and what that could amount to in terms of loss of revenue and profit.

While we would not wish to understate the possible loss, we believe that some of the claims that have been made have been exaggerated, and we hope that the potential loss could be kept to the minimum by all those concerned taking a positive and aggressive approach to promoting the alternative road connections.

Weighing those arguments against each other has not been easy. Having, however, considered all the arguments, the evidence and the representations with the greatest care, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced last week that he was minded to give the Civil Aviation Authority a direction preventing a resumption of the Heathrow to Gatwick helicopter link.

In our view, the environmental disturbance caused by the helicopter link can no longer be justified now that fast alternative connections are available which should prove acceptable to the majority of passengers wishing to travel between the two airports.

As required under section 6 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, my right hon. Friend has consulted the Civil Aviation Authority before giving it a direction, and our officials have written to British Caledonian. The authority has said that it has no comments to make on the proposal that the Secretary of State should issue a direction.

We realise that the announcement will have come as a great disappointment to British Caledonian and to the many hon. Members and others who have supported the continuation of the helicopter link. It has not made our task any easier to know that, whatever my right hon. Friend decided, we would disappoint as many people as we satisfied. But it is the responsibility of Government to make hard choices, and we cannot shirk that.

My right hon. Friend made it clear in his statement that in certain circumstances he would be prepared to look again at the need for a scheduled helicopter service between Heathrow and Gatwick, if the question were to be referred to him at a future date.

Given that the balance between the environmental disturbance caused by the helicopter link and its economic benefits is fine, it would be wrong for us to suggest that the balance could never shift. For example—this was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley—there can be no guarantee that adequate surface links between the airports will be maintained in terms of speed, frequency and quality of the available services and facilities.

Nor should we rule out the possibility of operating an air link at some future date in such a way that significantly reduced the environmental impact. But any such reappraisal must be for the future, and after the alternatives to the helicopter link have had a year or two to prove themselves.

I very much hope that once my right hon. Friend has formally announced his decision, the issue will be accepted as closed, at least for the time being. The main task then will be to make the surface links work as well as possible.

Question pat and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to One o'clock.