§ Lord Boyd-CarpenterMy 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 why it was necessary for 2¼ years to elapse between the conclusion of the public hearings of the inquiry into the development of Gatwick Airport and the announcement of their decisions by the Secretaries of State, and why work on this development is not yet authorised to begin; and what has been the cost to public funds and to the British Airports Authority of these proceedings.
§ The Earl of AvonMy Lords, the Inspector's report, which took eight months, contained many recommendations for consideration by the Government. In September 1981 new air traffic forecasts were made available which my right honourable friends considered to be material. In a letter to all the parties in November they expressed a preliminary view that it would be right to grant outline permission for the second terminal. However, they invited the interested parties to make written representations on the new forecasts before a final decision was taken. This procedure lasted until August 1982. My right honourable friends announced this final decision on 9th November last. It will now be necessary for detailed plans to be approved by the local planning authority, and other conditions of the permission to be met. The directly assessable cost to the Exchequer of the inquiry 2 was £96,000; this does not include some establishment costs not separately available. Expenditure incurred by the British Airports Authority on the inquiry is a matter for the board.
§ Lord Boyd-CarpenterMy Lords, I thank my noble friend for that comprehensive reply. May I ask him whether he is really satisfied that it was necessary to follow a procedure which, in the words of a learned judge,
went beyond time and encroached upon eternity",in order to decide what is not a very difficult issue?
§ The Earl of AvonMy Lords, that may well have been a learned judge's opinion; but, on the other hand, there is another opinion which says that two and a quarter years is not considered to be unduly long for this process, bearing in mind the requirement for further representations which arose.
§ Lord Elwyn-JonesMy Lords, I do not wish to disagree excessively. The remark about encroaching upon eternity was made by Chief Justice Cockburn in the last century.
§ The Earl of AvonMy Lords, I am sure he would have great expertise on airport inquiries.
§ Baroness Burton of CoventryMy Lords, while not rising on a legal point, may I ask the noble Earl whether the Government still adhere quite firmly to their Statement that 25 million passengers per annum will be the maximum permitted at Gatwick? Additionally, can he give the House any indication as to when the work at Gatwick will be completed and/or actually when the new extension of the terminal will be in use?—because the two might not be the same date.
§ The Earl of AvonMy Lords, I cannot confirm the answer to the noble Baroness' first question because I do not have the information at my fingertips. As regards work on the second terminal, provided the necessary planning and investment approvals are forthcoming, the British Airports Authority hope to start preparatory work on the site during the spring of 3 next year. It is estimated that the earliest that the first phase of the terminal can come into use is 1987.
§ Baroness Burton of CoventryMy Lords, will the Minister be kind enough to write and confirm the figure of 25 million passengers being the maximum per annum to be permitted?
§ The Earl of AvonMy Lords, I shall be happy to do so. I was not aware that the noble Baroness needed that confirmation.
§ Lord John-MackieMy Lords, has the Minister any idea whether this decision will affect the decision at Stansted?
§ The Earl of AvonMy Lords, my understanding is that the inquiry at Stansted is going ahead on the assumption that the second terminal will be built at Gatwick.