MAPLIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (DISSOLUTION) BILL [H.L.] (Hansard, 19 February 1976)

§ Baroness STEDMAN
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

§ Baroness YOUNG
It is not my intention to speak at any length on this Bill, but I cannot let the opportunity slip by without putting on record the very strong representations which have been made to me since we had the Second Reading debate on this matter. I recognise that the Bill before us is a very short Bill with a quite specific purpose, but the fact is that the general issue of a third London Airport is a matter of enormous public interest, and although it might appear to be outside the terms of the Bill immediately before us, nevertheless the Bill is part of the whole of the airports' strategy and policy.
What appears to be happening is that there will not be another London airport, but there will be quite considerable growth at Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton and Stansted without there being any opportunity to debate the matter and without there being any recognised policy statement on it; and I am taking this opportunity to raise it at this time because it is one of the few opportunities given to us at all. The objections to this overall policy have come in particular from the Town and Country Planning Association, 574 a much respected organisation which, I am bound to say, was extensively quoted in support of the Community Land Act when that matter was going through this House. I hope, therefore, because the Government were so glad of its support and very much supported the recommendations it made, they will consider with some care some of the points that it has raised on this general policy document, which has come in fact from the Department of Trade, on an airports' strategy for Great Britain.
I should like just to touch on two particular points which have to do with planning and the environment. The first concerns population growth round the airports. The population statistics are set out clearly, and paragraph 5(5) of the Report makes the statement that there are approximately 1,000 to 2,000 employees for each 1 million passengers going through an airport. I believe these figures to be quite incorrect. The latest published figures show that at Heathrow there are 2,500 employees per 1 million passengers going through that airport each year. Whether or not that figure is correct, on the forward estimates it seems to show that there will be only 400 employees per 1 million passengers up to the year1990. It is really stretching the incredulity of anybody to imagine that the productivity of each employee can rise six-fold in the intervening years. I think one needs to look with great care at the population projections round the four airports.
Looking again at the same paragraph, for each 1,000 employees it is estimated that there will be at least 600 jobs created by way of service industries around the airports. I believe that this too is a gross underestimate of what could happen; because it would mean in effect the addition of 12,000 service jobs at Gatwick when there will be eventually 20,000 extra employees, and yet the total population is put at about 45,000. At Stansted, where the same ratio of direct employment to local service work would produce over 20,000 additional workers of both kinds, the corresponding air supported population growth—to include the families of both local service workers and airport employees—is put at upwards of 20,000 within a radius of ten miles. At Heathrow the additional labour demand, including the off-airport service workers, would be over twice the 1973 total of employment 575 among 1 million workers living within a 30 minute journey of Heathrow.
The fact is that, looking further in the Report, a much more realistic estimate is made. In paragraph 8(16), every 1,000 workers at a large international airport could be regarded as supporting a total population of 4,000 or more. Taking that as being the more correct one, the proposed developments would support a population increase of 54,000 at Heathrow, 43,000 at Gatwick, 50,000 at Stansted and 20,000 at Luton.
I have raised this point because the figures themselves indicate the magnitude of the change we are talking about. Even if both sets of figures are marginally wrong, there is enough in this for it to be of major planning concern. This first point to which I wish to draw the Government's intention concerns what is becoming planning by stealth by allowing an enormous amount of growth at four airports without there being any real discussion.
I was very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for writing so fully to me after the last debate. The second point I should like to raise is one she confirmed about statutory planning procedures for growth round the airports. She has said that in fact the growth which will come within the perimeters of the airports will be subject to the General Development Order of 1973 and, as such, will not be subject to the statutory planning procedures, and there will be no right of a public inquiry or objection. Most of this development will come within those perimeters and will be outside the normal planning procedures. She said in her letter: The British Airports Authority have in fact undertaken to consult the local authorities on all proposed developments which they could carry out under the General Development Order, even though there is no statutory requirement for them to do so ". This is all very well; but, as anybody knows who knows anything about planning at all, it is easy to consult people and, having consulted them, not pay the slightest attention to any objections which are made. For an objector what matters is the right to make an objection at a public inquiry where the whole matter can be fully debated. None of these people is going to have that opportunity.
576 My two concerns are as follows: First, the enormous growth of these airports. This is leaving aside matters such as aeroplanes, noise and access roads. I am concerned about what will be required to support the population projections which are looked for. The second concern is that almost no one round those airports is going to have the right to a public inquiry and the normal planning procedures. If I am right in my interpretation, this seems a major matter of policy. It means—as the Town and Country Planning Association has pointed out—that we are going back to the assumption that Stansted is going to be the new third London Airport. If this is the case, then the Government owe the public a duty to say so. They ought not to pretend, by a series of rather small Bills and reports, to try to deceive a great many people. I do not think that those people will be taken in; and they have the right to know what the government propose for the areas in which they live.

§ Baroness STEDMAN
The noble Baroness has ranged somewhat outside the scope of the Bill. I had hoped that at the earlier stage she and noble Lords opposite had accepted my assurance that there would be a full debate in your Lordships' House on the document on airport strategy for Great Britain. I would have thought her speech this afternoon was more relevant to that discussion, when it takes place, than to the business before us this afternoon. Some of the arguments we have heard were premature in that respect.
I do not think any noble Lord has the right to assume that the Government by backdoor stealth have decided that Stansted is to be the third London Airport. This is still a matter for consultation; it is still a matter for decision of both Houses of Parliament. I hope that noble Lords will accept the assurances that we will have that full debate and will be able to go into considerable detail, not only into the points which the noble Baroness has raised this afternoon, but many others which will be raised as a result of the discussions and consultations on this lengthy document.
The Town and Country Planning Association is a little wary at the moment as to what might happen; no doubt it will make its views known to the Department. Up to this moment it has not 577 done so. There will be consultations with the Association and with the Department of Trade when we are discussing the future of the airports of this country. There will be ample opportunity for fuller debate. I am sorry that the noble Baroness has not completely accepted the assurances I gave her in my letter. In that, following the quotation which she read, I pointed out that it was also open to the Secretary of State for the Environment, on his own initiative or at the request of the local authority, to direct that any proposed development otherwise permitted under the General Development Order, should also be subject to the normal planning procedures. I will certainly make the views of the noble Baroness known to my right honourable friend; but I hope those views will not prevent this Bill from going further forward this afternoon.

§ Baroness YOUNG
It is not my intention to hold up the passage of this Bill; but I do not feel that was a satisfactory answer. Regarding the Town and Country Planning Association, I hope the Department of the Environment will take the opportunity to discuss this matter with the Association. One of the most disqueting features of these proposals is that the document comes from the Department of Industry and not from the Department of the Environment. Many people are extremely concerned that in all this the environment is completely forgotten, that a great deal of good agricultural land will be used up and a great deal of planning will take place without the consent of the people.
I did not read out the rest of the letter that the noble Baroness sent me. This was not because I did not consider it important, but because I do not believe even the assurance that her right honourable friend the Secretary of State would look at this matter is really good enough. At the end of the day, what matters is whether the individual can object. It is the individual who is going to be affected—the individual living near one of these airports—not the Secretary of State, not the Government, not myself. A great many other people are going to be affected. They should have this right; but they do not have that unless the Secretary of State cares to confer it upon them. They ought to have it as a statutory right. The public ought to be far 578 more fully informed than we have heard so far as to what is going on.

§ Baroness STEDMAN
Will the noble Baroness accept my assurance that I will ask my colleagues in the Department of the Environment if they will have consultations with the Town and Country Planning Association off their own bat? We are particularly concerned about the environment and will do our best to see that environmental views and the views of the Department of Trade are put forward with equal force.

§ Baroness YOUNG
I accept that assurance, and I am glad to hear it.