§ Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYEMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper, and in doing so, may I declare an interest as the Honorary President of the West London Flying Club which holds the flying rights lease in this particular airfield.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the fact that the Civil Aviation Authority in their Study of General Aviation in the South-East of England have categorised White Waltham airfield as a Group 2 airfield, and having regard to 2 the importance of providingan airfield within easy reach of central London to meet the requirements of general aviation in the London area, they will give an assurance that White Waltham airfield will continue as an airfield of sufficient acreage to remain a Group 2 airfield and to allow the safe continuation of present flying instruction and the safe operation of medium sized private and commercial aircraft flying both within this country and abroad.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Lord Melchett)My Lords, White Waltham airfield, which was formerly owned by the Ministry of Defence, is to be sold by the Property Services Agency under the normal arrangements for disposing of surplus Crown land. It is for the planning authorities and the future landowners to decide to what extent flying there should continue. I can therefore give no assurance regarding the future of the aerodrome.
§ Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYEMy Lords, would the noble Lord agree that if White Waltham airfield ceased to be a Group 2 airfield with full flying control, there will be no airfield at all to the West of London capable of taking small commercial aircraft?—which would be a national disaster, if not a national disgrace.
§ Lord MELCHETTMy Lords, at the moment the Government are awaiting the final report on a Study of General Aviation in the South-East of England which, 3 as the noble Lord will know, is being pro-pared by the Civil Aviation Authority and the Standing Conference on London and the South-East Regional Planning. At this stage, before that report is forthcoming, I cannot say whether the development of White Waltham, or the loss of the airfield, would have the consequences suggested by the noble Lord.
§ Lord AVEBURYMy Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, speaks of the normal arrangements for disposing of Crown land, does he include the Crichel Down procedure which involves offering this land first to the former occupiers before placing it for general sale? Is the noble Lord aware that this land consists of 400 acres of good Class 2 agricultural land, and that it would be contrary to the policy of the Government, as set out in the White Paper Food from our own Resources, if this land were to be used for any other purpose than agriculture? Is the noble Lord also aware that all the local authorities in the neighbourhood oppose its development for purposes other than agriculture?
§ Lord MELCHETTMy Lords, while I am not aware of the facts exactly as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury —in particular, I believe that the planning authority has decided that part of the land could continue to be used as an airfield, to the extent that it is now—my information certainly is that at least part of the land involved will come under the Crichel Down procedures.
§ Lord ORR-EWINGMy Lords, does the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, recall that arising from the Chequers meeting there was to be strong encouragement for British industry and the export trade and investment? Is he not aware that, increasingly, industrialists from this country and Western Europe use executive aircraft to conduct their business? White Waltham airfield makes a valuable contribution to efficiency and to inter-trade between Western Europe and this country. Would the Government not consider carefully whether they have an obligation to keep open this facility, thus helping British industry?
§ Lord MELCHETTMy Lords, the Government will consider the question of airfields for general aviation when they receive the report being prepared which 4 will cover the whole of the South-East region of the country. I do not think it would be sensible to make decisions on one particular airfield before that report is received. The report is expected shortly. The fact that White Waltham is a Group 2 airfield has no particular significance other than that it designates the length of the runway. There are some considerable disadvantages to White Waltham; for example, the fact that there is no concrete runway and, I understand, no ILS facilities, and various other things. So "Group 2" does not have much significance in that respect.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTONMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his Answer conveyed a certain sense of irresponsibility as to the consequences of his actions as a landlord? Is he aware that a landlord, whether of Aintree racecourse, of an airfield, or of anything else, has a responsibility? It is a matter in regard to which Her Majesty's Government should set a certain example.
§ Lord MELCHETTMy Lords, I cannot for one moment accept that anything I have said illustrates any sort of irresponsibility. There is a conflict of interest as to the future ownership of this land. It seems to me absolutely right and proper that the Government should follow the established, laid-down procedures, and that is what I have said the Government will do.
Earl WALDEGRAVEMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that if we are to follow established, laid-down Government procedures, the Crichel Down procedure is rather like virginity—it is not partial? It is the Crichel Down procedure, is it not? This land was requisitioned for defence purposes and is now no longer needed for defence purposes. Has it or has it not been offered back to the original owner?
§ Lord MELCHETT?My Lords, it has not been offered back to the original owner because, as I understand it, the planning details are not finally settled. Not until the planning issues of a piece of land are settled can that land be disposed of by the Property Services Agency.
§ Lord SLATERMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that this supplementary question regarding this particular 5 piece of land follows a similar question that I asked the Leader of the previous Government when they were in power? Following the line put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, if the Government took it upon themselves to dispose of land which had come under their control, and had bought this land in the first place, then, prior to its being sold to the Government and the Government taking over, the owner of the land had the first option of having that land taken back if he so desired. That was the answer given by the previous Government.
§ Lord MELCHETTYes, my Lords, and I have said that that still applies to that part of the land which would normally come under the Crichel Down procedures. As I understand it, part of the land was originally sold to an aircraft company, which built an airfield on the site, and it may be that that part of the land would not fall under the Crichel Down procedures.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSSMy Lords, would the noble Lord confirm that among other things to be considered is the effect of noise on those living in the vicinity, and the opportunity for the public locally to participate in any decision made with regard to this airfield?
§ Lord MELCHETTMy Lords, I would agree that that is a matter for the planning authorities in the area.
§ Viscount BLEDISLOEMy Lords, I must declare an interest, because I am one of Lord Balfour's vice-presidents. I am also a director of and shareholder in West London Aero Services, which controls the flying club. Is the noble Lord aware that West London Aero Services have before the court a lease, which is due to be renewed, and will probably be renewed for a matter of 14 years? So, whether or not Critchel Down applies that lease will continue and the flying rights over the whole airfield will continue, probably for a matter of 14 years.
§ Lord MELCHETTMy Lords, I was not aware that that was the position under the lease; I will take the noble Viscount's word for it.
§ Lord GLENDEVONMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the owners of the land are perfectly willing that the 6 flying club part should remain as it is now? These questions are concerned simply with the part which the RAF requisitioned and do not want.
§ Lord MELCHETTMy Lords, I understand that what is under consideration is exactly which piece of land, with which boundaries, falls under each of the two categories.
§ Lord SANDYSMy Lords, in regard to the Crichel Down disposal procedures, would the Minister confirm that the assurance given by his noble friend Lady Birk, on Thursday, 6th November 1975, at columns 1460–1, will be adhered to, that we shall see a new circular from the Ministry on this subject?
§ The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd)My Lords, it is only an intervention from the Front Bench that makes me rise. I think we have gone very wide of the original Question on the Order Paper. That Question concerned the continuation of a particular airfield. I think it is quite wrong that we should have gone as far as we have. Questions of such detailed character should arise on a separate Question. I therefore suggest that we move on to the next Question.