§ 3.58 p.m.
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY (LORD BESWICK)My Lords, with permission, I will read the Statement that has been made in another place by the Secretary of State for Trade. The Statement is as follows:
"The Government has announced its intention to re-examine certain major development projects in the field of the environment and public transport. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment said in a Written Answer yesterday, the Maplin project for the Third London Airport is one of these. He also said that he was authorising no further work in the meantime.
"Accordingly, I have set in hand a reappraisal of air traffic forecasts for the 1980s and 1990, to take account of the recent increase in fuel prices and the growing use of wide-bodied aircraft. I have also asked for a reassessment of the forecasts of noise disturbance around airports and I will be examining the possibility of greater use of airports in regions outside the South-East.
"This review will be carried out in consultation with the Civil Aviation Authority, the British Airports Authority, and British Airways, and a further Statement will be made to the House before the Summer Recess."
§ BARONESS YOUNGMy Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for repeating this Statement and, as this is the first opportunity I have had to congratulate him, to say that I wish him well in this new work.
My Lords, I welcome the fact that this Statement is not a definitive statement on the Maplin project but simply a proposal for a further review. It is, however, a 389 very short Statement on a most important subject, and the first question I should like to ask the noble Lord is in what way the proposed review differs from the review already agreed upon by Parliament under the Maplin Development Act. One notable omission, it seems to me, is that far fewer organisations are to be brought into the consultations. As I well recall, only a few weeks ago I was frequently criticised by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, about the lack of consultation on this subject. It seems unfortunate that there does not appear to be provision for any consultation, as the Act requires, with the National Ports Council, the Port of London Authority or the Maplin Development Authority.
I would say that one of the important factors is the future of the seaport. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will tell us whether this is still being considered, and whether the use of the Port of London as a leading port in Europe for very large ships is still a possibility. One of the difficulties of further reviews is they create uncertainties. I note that one of the matters to be examined is the greater use of airports in regions outside the South-East. This was agreed in the Act, but we do not know whether the intention is to review any of those sites considered by the Roskill Commission, Cublington and Stansted, or whether there is any further information for the inhabitants of places near Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton as to the consequences for them of this review, or any further proposals for the possible discontinuance of the Maplin project.
I note that the Statement has been made by the Secretary of State for Trade. I hope that this does not mean that environmental factors are going to be left out of this review. Not only do I believe it to be necessary to consult local authorities, but many amenity societies will doubtless be very interested in what is happening in their areas. I hope that the noble Lord will also consider other environmental factors besides noise. Any extension of an airport, whether in the South-East or elsewhere, involves not only runways and buildings but, of course, the employment that is generated, the infrastructure, roads, et cetera. This is a very large environmental problem 390 and I believe these are extremely important issues of concern to everyone.
Finally, may I ask about timing? I welcome the fact that there is to be a further report before the Summer Recess. I should like to know the relation between this further Statement we may expect and the Order which is promised under the Maplin Development Act.
§ LORD AVEBURYMy Lords, we too warmly welcome the Statement which has been repeated by the noble Lord, and express the hope that the Maplin project will be not only deferred, pending its reappraisal, but cancelled altogether as a result of the study, bearing in mind the 20 per cent. cuts in public expenditure which were imposed by the previous Government, so rendering unjustifiable the expenditure of £1,000 million on a new airport. Since we are to have this review, may I ask the noble Lord whether it will take into account the recent increase in the price of aviation fuel, and also probable further increases that are bound to occur between now and the 1980s? May I further ask whether the reappraisal will include studies to estimate the elasticity of demand for air travel so that we may make a reasonable prediction of the volume of traffic according to whatever figures we have for the cost of aviation fuel, and hence the cost per passenger mile of aircraft? Will the studies also take into account developments of high speed rail services within this time scale, the opening of the Channel Tunnel and the resulting diversion of air traffic to rail which will no doubt occur?
On the use of provincial or Scottish airports, may I ask whether the Government have considered the possibility of launching aid for new services from Scottish or provincial English cities to Continental destinations if it can be shown that there is a reasonable prospect of these new services becoming profitable within a few years?
§ 4.5 p.m.
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for her good wishes, which I also had from the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, yesterday. We seem to be launched already upon a mini-debate on this subject, and I note what the noble Baroness 391 said about the way I questioned her: she is obviously going to repay me in kind—and probably to a greater extent. I will do my best to answer the questions. First of all, regarding the possibility of local authorities making representations, there will be no formal inquiry, in the accepted sense, no evidence given, in the course of this reappraisal; but every opportunity will be given to local authorities, if they wish so, to make their views known.
The noble Baroness pointed out that this Statement was being made by the Secretary of State for Trade rather than the Secretary of State for the Environment. One advantage of that is that it will leave the Secretary of State for the Environment in a somewhat more objective position in the event of any planning considerations coming up to him for a decision. Regarding Maplin seaport, this will be a matter for separate consideration in the light of any conclusions that are reached as a result of this reappraisal. One reason why we are pressing on with this as a matter of urgency is that it will obviously be necessary to make a decision with regard to the seaport. The noble Baroness said that uncertainty was being created as a result of a further review; but she also said that a review of a kind was implicit, or indeed inherent, in the Act we passed. I should not have thought any further uncertainty was being created by this reappraisal. In any case, it will be a matter for proceeding with the utmost expedition. The noble Baroness asked about alternatives. I assure her that all conceivable alternatives will be considered. Most of the facts are known, and naturally they will be taken into account alongside the possible further use of the existing airports in the South-East.
I was asked what will happen once the further promised Statement is made before the Summer Recess. I suppose that it will depend to some extent, as the noble Baroness will appreciate, upon the decisions that are reached. But we accept that there is a need for some urgency, although as we have said in the course of other debates the time factor has been put back to some extent. Indeed, there is now a lead time of some ten years before, even on the previous arguments of the noble Baroness, the airport at Maplin would be in use.
392 The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked whether we would take into account the possibility of even further increases in fuel costs. To the extent that it is possible to assess the position, this matter will be taken into account. Similarly, so far as elasticity of passenger demand is concerned, the new developments in surface transport must also come into any calculation of passenger demand. The noble Lord asked specific questions about the situation in relation to Scotland, and the possibility of giving aid. Whether this will come into the proposals that will eventually be presented for regional development I should not like to say. But I will see that what the noble Lord asks is considered.
§ LORD MERRIVALEMy Lords, while adding my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, on his elevation to the position he now holds, especially in view of his knowledge of aviation matters, may I ask whether in the course of this survey the possible impact of the opening of the Charles de Gaulle Airport at Roissy will be considered and whether it will affect the decision on whether or not Maplin is built? Will this point be taken into account? Does the noble Lord feel that an airport which can take 40 to 50 million passengers a year, as Roissy can, will attract a number of air services away from Maplin and towards Roissy, bearing in mind that if the Channel Tunnel is built there will be greater access between these two countries as a result of the Channel Tunnel?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, certainly the development will have to be taken into account. The noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, will remember that one of the arguments I advanced during the course of our debates was that if passengers have to go down to Maplin a great many people will decide that they may as well use the French airport.
§ LORD WYNNE-JONESMy Lords, may I ask whether the hydrological studies will be allowed to continue?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, I should need to inquire about the extent that they are proceeding and write to my noble friend. I cannot be certain because I have in mind the fact that no further expenditure on the Maplin project will be allowed. Whether that will include the 393 hydrological studies I am not certain; but, as I say, I will let my noble friend know.
§ LORD WYNNE-JONESMy Lords, if the noble Lord will excuse me, I believe that the hydrological studies were under way, and I thereby presume that a large amount of the cost has been incurred. What I should like to know is whether they will be allowed to come to a conclusion.
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, I find it difficult to say that they will be when I recall that no further money is to be spent on the Maplin project. On this particular and very relevant point, I will find out and write to the noble Lord.
§ LORD ORR-EWINGWould the right honourable gentleman—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: The noble Lord!
§ LORD ORR-EWINGI am sorry; I was going back to the noble Lord's previous life but one. Could he say whether a decision is likely to be taken fairly soon on the Channel Tunnel? One case for not going ahead with Maplin was that something like 10 per cent. of the traffic could probably be diverted through the Channel Tunnel. If this is not to go ahead it will have a considerable repercussion on the loading of London's airports. Therefore, can we have a fairly early decision on this issue?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, certainly a decision will have to be taken on the Channel Tunnel, and it is equally certain that the inter-relation will be taken into account.
§ LORD LEATHERLANDMy Lords, did I hear my noble friend say that one of the matters to be considered will be the dispersal of some air traffic to other airports in the South-East? If I did hear him correctly, does that mean that any substantial amount of new traffic is to be diverted to Stansted? If so, it will be a very great pity, and there will be one deuce of a row all over again.
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, I am aware of my noble friend's views on this matter. What I said in the Statement was that I shall be examining the possibility of diversion to regional airports, but of course the utilisation of existing 394 airports in the South-East will necessarily be taken into account if the Maplin project does not go ahead. But I can tell the noble Lord that in this reconsideration the noise factors at Stansted as well as Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton will be taken into account.
§ LORD TREFGARNEMy Lords, will the noble Lord undertake to inquire of the independent airlines as to their plans for the use of the regional airports which he said he was going to consider? After all, they are major users of these regional airports and in the past they have not been as fully consulted as they might have been.
§ LORD BESWICKCertainly, that plan must be taken into consideration, my Lords. I do not see how one can consider the development of regional airports unless one takes that into consideration. If the noble Lord has any reason to believe that the users have not been fully consulted, no doubt he will let me know.
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, this may not be the time to pursue this matter for much longer. We have a long debate ahead of us, and I think there is another Statement to come. We may even come back to this matter again. When we do, I should like the noble Lord to tell us the answer to this question. The Maplin Development Act is on the Statute Book. He opposed it very strongly, but it is the law of the land. That Act, so far as I remember, says that a consultation of a particular kind should take place, and it names a number of parties who are to be consulted. So far as I can tell, the inquiry, the consideration that is now to be given to this matter, is not consistent with what is contained in that Act. I think the noble Lord will have to satisfy us on what the Government are doing; that it is a proper course of action. But that is for another day rather than now.
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, the noble Lord is probably thinking of Section 2 of the Act. I can assure him that that has been taken into account.
§ THE EARL OF ONSLOWMy Lords, before we finish, will the noble Lord kindly make a statement as to whether he will change the view of the last Government and give more support to the hush-kits to be fitted to Spey series of 395 engines which will make an enormous difference to the noise and damage created at the moment?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, one of the things that has to be considered is the possibility of imposing further noise regulations on all operators, and whether they conform to those noise regulations by fitting hush-kits or new equipment will be a matter for them. But all this is now being considered with the airlines and manuafacturers concerned.
§ LORD IRONSIDEMy Lords, will the Government take into account the noise factors which arise outside the one mile area of an airport? Because the noise arising between, say, one mile and five miles is often more severe than the noise arising very close to the airport when the pilots are acting under certain regulations.
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. I used to try—the noble Lord may say, tell the House—that it would be possible to deal with this if we had aircraft which could climb that much more quickly and take the noise further away more quickly.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, would the noble Lord reassure us that the studies being made by the Port of London Authority as to the commercial viability of a seaport at Southend are still going ahead?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, so far as I know the answer to that is, Yes. But again I must confirm that and write to the noble Lord.