Gatwick Airport: Runway Capacity (Hansard, 8 March 1984)

§ Baroness Burton of Coventry
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne)
My Lords, the Government have made it clear that they do not intend to pursue the possibility of a second runway at Gatwick. We remain of the view that with the trend to larger aircraft the single runway will be able to handle 25 million passengers a year, the estimated capacity of Gatwick's two terminals, by the mid-1990s.

§ Baroness Burton of Coventry
My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he has noted the leader in the 25th February issue of Flight magazine? It comments on, an inadequate form of Gatwick development—a single runway when, for safety alone, it should have two runways for planned traffic". May I ask the Minister also that when the British Airports Authority is privatised and its airports are offered for sale, will a condition of the sale of Gatwick Airport be that no second runway is ever to be laid down?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, to answer first the second part of that supplementary question, if Gatwick Airport were to be privatised as the noble Baroness suggests—and I emphasise that no decision, let alone announcement, has been made on that—then all property rights, liabilities and obligations of the statutory body would be transferred to any successor company as they stand. The position would therefore be unchanged by privatisation, or whatever it was decided to do.
As to the leader article in Flight to which the noble Baroness referred, there are really no implications for safety in the question whether there is one runway or two runways. As the noble Baroness will be aware, it is in any event planned that the northern taxi-way at Gatwick should be available as a second runway for emergency purposes.

§ Baroness Burton of Coventry
My Lords, what the Minister has said is of great interest in view of the possible privatisation of the authority. Without wishing to embarrass the Minister unduly, but just to jolt him a little, would he care to refer to the debate we 360 had in this House on 24th January 1979, when the views he himself then expressed were very differernt from those he has expressed today on this matter? As the noble Minister himself is a skilled pilot, presumably he is having to say—and I fully understand this—what the Government intend. But perhaps he will read that previous debate.

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I will certainly refresh my memory of the debate to which the noble Baroness has referred, although I believe that I was speaking from the Dispatch Box opposite. Be that as it may, circumstances have changed pretty substantially in that time, and I have no doubt that a new view is now appropriate.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that, as I believe has been more than once stated, the assurance given by the British Airports Authority to a local pressure group against the building of a second runway does not hind the Government?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I do not think I could describe West Sussex County Council as a local pressure group. It was indeed to that body that the British Airports Authority gave that undertaking. As I said in answer to the noble Baroness, the rights, liabilities and obligations of the statutory body will be transferred to any successor company when and if that should come to pass.

§ Lord Beswick
My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that when Gatwick Airport was orginally planned—and I had something to do with that planning—it was always intended that there should be two runways? Also, is he aware that the arguments against two runways have absolutely nothing to do with wide-bodied aircraft development but with the protests of the residents around Gatwick?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I believe there has been a good deal of misunderstanding about the advantages or otherwise which may flow from a two-runway layout at Gatwick. For example, two runways were contructed at Heathrow, and it has not proved possible in the light of modern standards to use both those runways to the maximum extent. If a second runway were to be constructed at Gatwick, it would only increase the busy rate, as it is called, in terms of aircraft capacity by about 10 per cent.

§ Lord Beswick
My Lords, the Minister is not being quite frank with the House. Will he give the House the possible movements at Heathrow with two runways and the possible movements at Gatwick with one runway?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, the question of movements at Heathrow is, I submit, another question. At any rate, and as the noble Lord will be aware, movements at Heathrow will be subject to a limit after Terminal 4 comes into use.

§ The Earl of Onslow
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that people living in those parts of Surrey and Sussex which surround Gatwick are extremely pleased 361 that there is not to be a second runway there? We suffer enough from noise pollution as it is.

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I am pleased to hear that at least one of my noble friends is happy.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that presumably the people living under the flight-paths at Heathrow would warmly welcome the development of a second runway at Gatwick?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I have endeavoured to explain that were a second runway to be built at Gatwick it would offer little in the way of relief to those who live around Heathrow.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the establishment of Gatwick Airport has provided most valuable employment in the neighbourhood? Were the airport to be allowed to expand to the size orginally planned it would also increase the useful provision of employment, which is very acceptable to many people living there.

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I am sure that the employment advantages to which my noble friend has referred are indeed welcome to people who live in the district—but the noise of the airplanes is less so.

§ The Earl of Onslow
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Surrey and Sussex are not unemployment blackspots and so the argument about employment would be much more valid if applied to Newcastle, Liverpool or possibly Scunthorpe? Certainly it does not apply to Surrey or Sussex.

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, my noble friend is quite correct. The difficulty is that the passengers tend to come from the South-East and not the places to which my noble friend refers.

§ Lord John-Mackie
My Lords, will the noble Lord also remember that the people of Bishop's Stortford, Epping and Harlow will be delighted with developments at Heathrow and Gatwick?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, the noble Lord is no doubt quite correct, but that is another question.

§ Lord Underhill
My Lords, the noble Lord referred to the maximum possible passenger capacity at Gatwick. Can he inform the House whether there is a fixed figure of annual aircraft movements at Gatwick?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, the maximum annual number of passengers that we anticipate at Gatwick is, as I said in my original Answer, about 25 million when both terminals come into use. That predicates about 100,000 movements a year.