§ 3.2 p.m.
§ Baroness Burton of CoventryMy 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, in view of the evidence given by the civil aviation policy division of the Department of Trade to the Stansted Airport Inquiry that there are considerable environmental advantages for local communities in a "two-runway situation" they are prepared to reconsider the desirability of installing a second runway at Gatwick airport.
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, the Government took account of all the relevant factors, including environmental considerations, in reaching their decision not to pursue the possibility of a second runway at Gatwick.
§ Baroness Burton of CoventryMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that it was the assistant secretary of the airports branch who gave this evidence? May I ask the Minister whether he has in his brief a copy of that day's proceedings at the inquiry now being held over the matter of Stansted? If so, is he aware that, referring to the second runway, the assistant secretary said:
… this was one of the few advantages that Heathrow had over Gatwick as the local residents were given relief by the alteration of runway movements"?Whatever the Government have decided, is the Minister not aware that the airlines have wanted for some long time, and want at present, the establishment of a second runway? We are really wondering what is the use of making protestations to the Government and to the British Airports Authority when the actual users of what would be the second runway are completely ignored.
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, the noble Baroness has quoted very selectively from the evidence. I would refer her to the sentence before the one that she read out.
§ Baroness Burton of CoventryMy Lords, is the Minister aware that I resent that? I have the whole of the evidence in front of me, but I will not weary the House with it. May I ask the Minister whether he will answer my question? Is he aware that, quite apart from the second runway, there is real disquiet in the civil aviation industry over what I would term, perhaps hesitatingly, the arrogance of the British Airports Authority, which refuses to take into consideration the views of the airlines who themselves are the users of the airport?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, of course we have taken into account the views of the airlines in this matter. I was myself at one time an airline operator out of Gatwick and am well aware of the operational advantages that might flow from a second runway there. I am, however, persuaded by the arguments that lead 940 in the other direction. A second runway at Gatwick, if constructed, would have to be 2½ kilometres or thereabouts to the north of the existing runway and the take-off path to the east would be right over the town of Horley.
§ Lord Nugent of GuildfordMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that there are very solid commitments to the neighbouring county councils that there will not be a second runway at Gatwick?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, I am aware of the commitments to which the noble Lord refers. Indeed, I remember discussing that matter in some detail in your Lordships' House at the time the undertakings were given, I think, by the British Airports Authority to the neighbouring authorities. The Government in fact were not a party to those undertakings, but they nonetheless came to the view that a second runway at Gatwick would not mean the best use of the funds available.
§ Baroness Burton of CoventryMy Lords, while not claiming to be a former pilot, but only a nuisance, may I pursue this matter? May I ask the noble Lord whether, while I appreciate the interest and knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, in environmental matters, there is another aspect? Is it of the slightest use people who feel differently from this trying to pursue the matter in the hope that the Government might change their minds? Referring to the guarantees given previously, is the Minister aware that, as I understand it, these were given to the Members of Parliament whose constituencies surrounded Gatwick Airport? Is it not time that we had another look at it in the light of present-day conditions?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, I think that my noble friend was referring to the undertakings given at one time by the British Airports Authority to the local planning authorities who are responsible for the country surrounding Gatwick Airport in connection with a second runway. As I said, the Government were not a party to those undertakings but were aware of them. It was other matters that drew us to the conclusion that a second runway at Gatwick would not be appropriate. As to not taking into account the views of people who take a contrary position, it seems to me that people get particularly incensed when their view does not prevail, but they do not always have right entirely on their side.
§ Lord Harvey of PrestburyMy Lords, if it were agreed to build a second runway at Gatwick, would it not mean demolishing the cargo buildings which were put up only five years ago? Further, is my noble friend aware it is generally thought that these buildings were constructed so that a second runway could not be made?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, that is an interesting thought, but the fact is that a second runway at Gatwick to be of any value would have to be constructed, as I said, about 2½ kilometres north of the existing runway, and that would mean that the easterly take-off path was right over the centre of the town of 941 Horley while the westerly take-off path would be right over the village of Charlwood. In addition, it would necessitate many thousands of acres being acquired by the British Airports Authority for that purpose and doubtless would involve the destruction of a large number of buildings.
§ Lord BeswickMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware, as one who had something to do with the original choice of Gatwick, that the solid commitments given to the local community at Gatwick caused one of the biggest single mistakes that have been made in aviation? It was sensible to have two runways at Gatwick, and it would be a great achievement if we could still go back to the original two-runway conception.
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, the Government have to take decisions in these matters, as the noble Lord well knows, in the light of all the arguments advanced. Certainly there would be some operational advantages to Gatwick if a second runway could be made. As I said, it would need to be made a minimum distance from the existing runway, and the cost, for example, in terms of the environment, not to mention money, would be very substantial. We came to the conclusion, which I believe was the right one, that the balance of advantage lay in other directions.
§ Lord DenhamMy Lords, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, has been trying to speak on this Question for some time. As we have now spent 32 minutes on four Starred Questions, your Lordships may feel that, after the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, has put his question and my noble friend has answered it, we should pass on.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. Is the Minister aware that, whether by a second runway at Gatwick or by the development of Stansted, some relief is needed by the millions of people under the flight paths at Heathrow? The degree of nuisance which is suffered by those who live under the flight paths at Heathrow is so great that some relief of one sort or another is urgently necessary.
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, the Government take the view that there is a maximum environmental price to be paid at Heathrow which should not be exceeded. It was for that reason that my right honourable friends, when they granted permission for the fourth terminal at Heathrow, imposed a total maximum number of air transport movements at Heathrow of 275,000.