§ Baroness Burton of CoventryMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they consider themselves bound by the agreement entered into in 1978 between the British Airports Authority and West Sussex County Council to the effect that no second runway would be built at Gatwick Airport or whether it was made clear that such agreement did not bind the Government; and whether they will make a statement to clarify the position.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne)My Lords, the present Government were not consulted about the agreement and are not parties to it. That being the case, the Government cannot be bound by its terms.
§ Baroness Burton of CoventryMy Lords, that is a very interesting reply. May I move on to an aspect which is related to the runway at Gatwick; namely, the northern taxiway. Does the Minister recall that on 27th April, at col. 258, he told the House that planning consent had been granted to the British Airports Authority to upgrade the northern taxiway at Gatwick in order to make it into an emergency runway? In view of that statement, would the noble Lord comment upon information that I have been given; namely, that this runway could not, even then, be used as an emergency runway and, furthermore, that any possible uses for the runway even after the upgrading, would be severely limited and would certainly prohibit most public transport aircraft from taking off?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, I do not believe that that would be the case. As the noble Baroness mentioned, the British Airports Authority have planning permission to construct an emergency runway out of the existing northern taxiway. Work on this is expected to commence shortly. However, I would emphasise that it is proposed that it should be only an emergency runway—in other words, available for use only when the main runway is not, for some reason, available.
§ Baroness Burton of CoventryMy Lords, that is not good enough. Would the Minister please look into the information which I have given to him? I have not manufactured it. Is he aware that I have been told that it would not be possible to use this runway as an emergency runway, even after the upgrading? Would 222 the Minister look into the points I have made and write to me about them?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, I shall happily write to the noble Baroness, if I need to do so, but I hope that I can satisfy her on this point. The case is that the northern taxiway, when it is upgraded, as I have said, will not be of the same length as the main runway. Therefore, it will not be able to take fully loaded, long-range transport aircraft. However, it will be available to ensure that the worst difficulties caused by the closure of the main runway—for example, that aircraft cannot leave Gatwick at all, or cannot land, even in an emergency—do not arise.
§ Baroness Burton of CoventryMy Lords, we are getting several revelations this afternoon. Will the House allow me to ask the noble Lord one further question? Do I understand from his original reply that if the Government of the day should ever wish to lay down a second runway at Gatwick, or if the new owners, after privatisation of Gatwick airport, wish to lay down a second runway, they would be able to do so and would not be prohibited by the 1978 agreement?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, the first part of the noble Baroness's supplementary question is hypothetical. As the Government have said on a number of occasions, they do not propose to build a second runway at Gatwick. As to the second part of the noble Baroness's supplementary question, the case is that the undertakings given by the British Airports Authority will be transferred to whoever in the future may turn out to be the owner of Gatwick airport.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that although an emergency runway is no doubt desirable, there are millions of people living under the glide path to Heathrow who would be delighted if a full second runway were to be built at Gatwick?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, the noble Lord believes that that might reduce the number of operations into Heathrow, but I have to tell him that the evidence which I have does not support that contention. The way in which the total number of movements at Heathrow is to be controlled will be in accordance with the planning consent that was given for the fourth terminal at Heathrow which, as the noble Lord may recall, imposes a total maximum limit upon the number of movements at Heathrow.
§ Lord Howie of TroonMy Lords, apart from its length, when the second runway is upgraded will it attain the same engineering standards as the existing runway at Gatwick?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, as I said earlier, it will not be so long as the main runway at Gatwick. Therefore it will not be available for use by the most heavily laden of the large aircraft; nor, I understand, will it have the kind of radio navigation aids which are normally available on the main runway. This means that it will not be possible to use the emergency runway in adverse weather conditions in the same way as the main runway can usually be used.
§ Lord Howie of TroonMy Lords, I beg the noble Lord's pardon. That is not quite what I meant. I was referring to the engineering construction of the runway. I am asking whether it will be built to the same standards as the existing runway.
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, as the noble Lord may know, the physical standards of the runway are defined in terms of load classification number. When it is upgraded to be an emergency runway I believe that the maximum load classification number of the new taxiway will not be the same as the classification of the main runway at Gatwick, which again means that the most heavily laden aeroplanes will not be able to use it.
Lord MorrisMy Lords, bearing in mind my noble friend's original Answer, may I ask him whether, if the present Administration is not bound by an agreement entered into by the previous Administration, Conservative Governments are bound by a previous Conservative Government's agreements with members of the public?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, that sounds to me to be a purely hypothetical question, but if my noble friend has any specific case in mind I will be happy to examine it.
§ Lord LeatherlandMy Lords, arising from the comments the Minister has just made, can he assure the House that a fully laden aircraft could in an emergency use this emergency landing place?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, if the emergency considerations were overiding and the view of the captain of the aircraft was such that only that runway was suitable to cope with the particular emergency that had arisen, then of course permission would be given for it to be used. Generally speaking, what would happen in such a circumstance would be that the arriving aircraft, for example, would divert to some other aerodrome.