§ 3.25 p.m.
§ 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, further to their reply to Baroness Burton of Coventry on 13th February 1986 (col. 286–7), they will make a statement on the passenger throughput and capacity at Stansted Airport.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness)My Lords, I have already written to the noble Baroness on this matter. Due to the length of the letter I invited her to put down a suitable Written Question so that the contents would be published in the Official Report. I have now placed a copy of the letter in the Library.
§ Baroness Burton of CoventryMy Lords, does the Minister realise that the Government White Paper on Airports Policy (Cmnd. 9542) published in June said at paragraph 4.13:
During early stages of development—Stansted is a current example—the number of passengers which can be handled is determined by terminal capacity":and at paragraph 5.26:Stansted airport, though possessing a full-length runway, currently has a terminal capacity of only 2 million passengers per annum and a passenger throughput of approximately 0.5 million passengers per annum"?That (I would ask the Minister whether he recalls) is exactly what I said a fortnight ago and what I stand by.
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, the noble Baroness is quite correct when she quotes the extracts from the White Paper. She was indeed quite correct in saying that at that time the estimated capacity of Stansted was 2 million passengers per annum. As I said in my reply to the noble Baroness on her earlier Question, which again was correct, on present traffic flow the capacity is 1 million.
§ Baroness Burton of CoventryMy Lords, referring to that answer and arising from his letter, may I ask the Minister if he does not find that an attempted explanation of the discrepancy in our figures is that—and I quote from the Minister's letter—
capacity of 2 million passengers per annum could only be achieved by accepting a considerably lower standard of service to passengers who would suffer increased congestion and delay"?Does that explanation not make words quite meaningless? But I do not blame the Minister for what he has put in the letter, and I shall certainly table the requisite Written Question.
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for saying that she will now table the Written Question. No, my Lords, I do not think the words are meaningless at all. It is on the present flow, which has become increasingly peaky. Perhaps I may inform the House that during the summer season more than 35 per cent. of the passengers using Stansted do so on Sundays; in the winter season, this 1166 increases to 60 per cent. On the present flow, the reduction in the capacity is naturally going to go down.
§ Lord UnderhillMy Lords, although I understand the desire of the noble Baroness to have the facts correct, does not the small throughput and the present small capacity illustrate the problems that will arise when the Government proceed with a policy of developing up to 8 million passengers a year with provision for a possible 15 million passengers a year—problems with regard to rail development, road infrastructure and urban development?
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will be aware, phase one of the development at Stansted is to 7 million to 8 million passengers per annum. After that it is up to Parliament to decide whether an increase is suitable.
Lord Bruce of DoningtonMy Lords, in view of the fact that 14 whole days have elapsed since the Question was put by the noble Baroness, does the noble Earl not agree that within those 14 days a suitable amount of brain power might have been deployed, in order to be cost-effective within the Government's terms? Why can he not make a statement in accordance with the request of the noble Baroness? Why can he not make a statement today?
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, if the House would bear with me I should be very happy to make the long statement, which is the same as the letter, but I think that at Question Time that would be an abuse of the House.