HL Deb 13 December 1966 vol 278 cc1548-51

2.47 p.m.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will state, for the first half of 1966, and for each of the preceding three years, the number of inward and outward flights from Turn house Airport which have had to be cancelled owing to bad weather and strong winds; whether they are aware that, in addition to the actual number of flights diverted, there are still larger numbers of flights—particularly incoming ones—where the comfort and often the safety of passengers are endangered by the existing runway being unsuitable for the landing or taking off of aircraft, when the wind is blowing from a number of directions; and whether, in view of the rapidly increasing number of passengers using Turn house Airport, they will, in the interests of the safety of these passengers, reconsider their decision not to construct a second runway before the early1970s.]

LORD RHODES

My Lords, I want to apologise for the length of this Answer. I have tried to cut it down, but I have not succeeded. The number of flights at Turnhouse cancelled or diverted because of bad weather (other than cross-winds) was 146 in 1963, 188 in 1964, 121 in 1965, and 155 during the first half of 1966. The number cancelled or diverted because of cross-winds was 97 in 1963, 74 in 1964, 64 in 1965, and 17 in the first half of 1966. Pilots are required to operate within limits laid down by their companies for each type of aircraft and there is no question of the safety of passengers being endangered. The provision of a new runway would not affect the number of cancellations and diversions except those caused by crosswinds, and Her Majesty's Government do not consider that the expenditure of £2½ million to £3 million on a new runway could be justified at an early date for the comparatively small number of passengers at present inconvenienced.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. Would Her Majesty's Government be interested to know that only a few months ago when I was meeting a near relative at Turnhouse Airport the plane landed in such a way that even one of the women attendants in the information office there screamed and covered her eyes with her hands, and one of the male officials there cried, "Good God! the plane is down on its wing tip"; and the plane was able to pull up only 20 yards from the end of the runway, smashing most of the crockery on board? Would they be further interested to know that a great many people will not use Turnhouse Airport, although they wish to do so, if there is anything resembling a severe wind? Are they further interested to know that many of the most experienced pilots dislike intensely having to land at Turnhouse in such conditions? And, considering all these extremely important factors, does the noble Lord who replied realise that his Answer was largely inaccurate: that there are many occasions when passengers landing, and indeed taking off at Turnhouse, have their lives put in jeopardy? Accordingly, will Her Majesty's Government reconsider their ridiculous decision not to build a new second runway before the early 1970s?

LORD RHODES

My Lords, I think that if the noble Earl had really considered what he was going to say before he got on his feet he would have put a different supplementary question. This sort of talk is most dangerous, and exaggerations of this sort can do no good. The truth is that the percentage of flights which have had to be diverted because of cross-winds has been quite low, 0.7 of 1 per cent. In answer to the first part of his supplementary question, I am interested, but I should also be most interested to know the cause of that particular incident. I think that there is too much exaggeration about this, and I hope that when the noble Earl reads what he said to-day he will take the opportunity to encourage rather than detract.

LORD LINDGREN

My Lords, can my noble friend say whether this still is a joint user airport as between civil aviation and the Royal Air Force, as was the case at one time? Also, as one understands from the Answer that the larger number of diversions is due to causes other than cross-winds, can he say whether or not the ground control approach is in use at Turnhouse?

LORD RHODES

My Lords, I do not know whether it is a joint user airport. I would expect that the control is as he suggests. As to the number of diversions in the early part of the year, I understand that 92 were due to what is known in Edinburgh, I hope I pronounce it correctly, as the "Haar". I am perfectly certain that this matter is being overplayed.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, in view of the affirmative reply which the noble Lord gave to the first Question a few moments ago, does it not follow from that that there is at least the possibility that this improvement may be carried into effect before 1970?

LORD RHODES

No, I do not expect that it will be carried into operation before 1970, but I thank the noble Earl for the constructive element in his question; because there is no doubt about it that, having regard to the speed at which the increase in traffic is taking place, something definite will have to be done. But I cannot guarantee that it will be before 1970.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

My Lords, does the noble Lord realise that his reply has been received with dismay by those of us who have the misfortune to use Turnhouse Airport?

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

My Lords, arising out of the noble Lord's earlier reply, in which he said he would be interested to know the cause of the incident to which I referred, would he be interested further to know that it was entirely due to a strong cross-wind, and does he realise—and do Her Majesty's Government realise—that there are very many occasions when aircraft have not been diverted but passengers and crews have had their lives put in jeopardy by the landing conditions? Would Her Majesty's Government realise that it is essential that something should be done before the 'seventies if some bad accident is to be avoided?

LORD LINDGREN

My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that in fact a decision to land or divert is entirely in the hands of the captain of the aircraft, who has a regard for his own safety as well as that of the passengers?

LORD RHODES

Yes, quite definitely.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, may I ask if the noble Lord is satisfied that the figures which he has given for cancellations and diversions reveal the whole story? Is he aware that many may share my experience that, when there is a cross-wind, it is the practice to whittle down the number of passengers; and that although there is no diversion and the plane takes off, it does not take off with its full complement of passengers?

LORD RHODES

That I could not say. All I know is the percentage of the diversions.