London City Airport

HL Deb 22 February 1988 vol 493 cc1027-40

8.56 p.m.

The Earl of Kinnoull rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their latest assessment of the operational problems of London City Airport; of the long-term future, viability and safety of operations; and of the improved access points of the airport.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in rising to ask the Question on the London City Airport I should first like to thank those noble Lords who have indicted that they will take part, as I shall have no chance to do so later. I do so with particular respect, in view of the fact that they all took part in the previous debate, and I very much appreciate their keenness in taking part in this short debate as well.

The House will recall that in 1983, following a major planning inquiry, consent was given to transform the disused Royal Docks into a modern STOL airport. It was a bold, exciting and imaginative concept, conceived and funded by private resources by one of the country's most experienced construction companies, John Mowlem, who deserve great credit for their entrepreneurial courage and the large risk capital that they invested. It was a milestone in positive planning of airports, for in London airport planning issues generally there is a happy knack of taking years to decide even whether there should be one extra terminal at either Heathrow or Gatwick.

This new airport offered three positive planning gains. First, it provided a unique air link on the very doorstep of the City of London, with direct access to capital centres in Europe; an airport only six miles from Throgmorton Street or even the Bank of England and possible only a 10-minute to 15-minute journey when the road and rail links had come into place—this against a journey of one to one-and-a-half hours to either Gatwick or Heathrow.

The second advantage is that, despite its size, this airport can act in the future as a catalyst to the ambitious regeneration schemes of the present dock wasteland, with the major office relocation schemes, the new housing estates making good use of river frontage, the leisure and sports complexes, the exhibition centres, the hotels and shopping, altogether making a most exciting regeneration development. Airports generally create employment and investment. I do not doubt that London City Airport will be no exception when it gets into its stride.

The third simple gain is that the airport can and, one hopes, will make a contribution to easing the severe over-capacity problems facing Heathrow and Gatwick. The airport was opened last November by Her Majesty the Queen and immediately daily services started to Paris, Brussels and Plymouth. Its smart terminal building has a seductive attraction, a feeling almost personal to passengers compared with the somewhat jungle atmosphere of survivial in the latest Heathrow terminal. It has the advantages of a quick check-in and an efficient baggage reclaim. It is fitted with all the latest techniques for foul weather landing and so on. I do not think that anyone could criticise the airport for any lack of operating facilities.

However, the airport is not blessed at present with good ground communications. Roads are uncompleted, often congested and the dockland railway has not reached the immediate area. The proximity to the City is therefore somewhat lost if it takes, on a bad journey by car, 45 minutes to cover the six miles. I hope that my noble friend can reassure us tonight that improvements to the linking of the airport with the City are in the immediate programme.

Besides the need for good communications, the airport, being a STOL airport, requires active protection against the encroachment of new high developments and structures. There is concern already over the possible impact of the high structure design of a suspension bridge linking with the M.25. This structure, if built, would be virtually directly in line with the runway approach. Surely, it would be planning madness if such a structure unwittingly caused a limitation on the future potential use of the airport. I hope that my noble friend can inform us and reassure us on this matter.

The airport is not blessed with clear unrestricted skies above it. At the time of the 1983 planning consent, it was recognised that it was in an area of badly congested air traffic, with the Heathrow approach immediately to the west, Gatwick to the south and Biggin Hill, a very active airfield, even closer. All aspects were considered at great length and with studious care in 1983 before the very large investment in the construction of the airport was embarked upon. The Civil Aviation Authority and NATS, the National Air Traffic Services, gave assurances that flight operations were tenable from the airport. Thames radar was installed as an extra help for take-off and landings as well as assisting other traffic.

It is not hard to sympathise with the airport operator's despair when, barely two months after the inauguration of the Paris service—currently the most important route for the airport—the service was suspended because an airline operator considered the air traffic conditions unacceptable on safety grounds. It is difficult to imagine the damage, albeit temporary, to the public confidence in the airport. The House will recall that the Civil Aviation Authority immediately set up an inquiry. Four weeks later an acceptable solution was found to allow the resumption of the service. This resulted in 10 flights per day being guaranteed access in controlled airspace which happens to be the frequency planned for this summer to Paris.

The suspension of the Paris service leads one to ask what were the services NATS should have been providing in these crowded skies. The evidence is that controlled airspace was never guaranteed, but it was inferred that it would be available occasionally. In fact it was never available at all, right up to the December inquiry. The evidence is also that the advisory radar service from Gatwick would be available but it was only 50 per cent. available at that time. It took a brave and responsible operator to insist on better air traffic facilities. And this was achieved at some commercial cost. It seemed to require the Civil Aviation Authority to set up an inquiry to persuade the NATS to provide the service sought. It is a shame that in the meantime the airport had to suffer.

NATS has a proud record of safety in the control of our skies. The 1,300 controllers are expertly trained and dedicated, despite the present frictions. It is worth recalling that even with the dramatic stories of near-misses in the past week, the recorded figures for near-misses in 1986 were 16 cases and in 1976, 10 years earlier, 45 cases. If one considers the rapid growth of traffic in the meantime, it is an encouraging trend. However, I would not accuse NATS of being complacent. No one can be.

The major query I have with NATS arising out of the London City Airport experience is that it seems that already there is a lack of controlled airspace capacity. If we have to wait until 1990 to 1995 when its major investment programme is implemented, the matter will get a great deal worse. The consequence will be that air travellers must expect to tolerate increasing delays at airports in order to ensure safety.

That is an obvious priority; but so is accommodating traffic of today's proportions in the appropriate controlled airspace required. London City Airport is a very exciting concept. It deserves to succeed, for its success can bring great benefit both to the City and to the docklands. I hope that tonight my noble friend will confirm that the Government have a belief in its future, that they support improved vital ground facilities, that they are very much aware of the air traffic problems the airport has faced and that they will maintain watchfulness in allowing the airport to flourish in the future.

9.8 p.m.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, noble Lords will be most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for putting down this Question tonight. It gives us the opportunity to express views on a number of related subjects. I shall be quite brief. I believe this development in London docklands to be very exciting. It heralds enormous potential, not only for the City of London but for other major cities in this country and indeed in Europe. The ability to be able to get to an airport which is close to an office and to fly into another airport which is equally close to an office is something that many businessmen would be delighted to achieve.

The support in principle for the airport is unstinted from these Benches. But, like the noble Earl, we have been extremely worried by some of the things that have been happening in recent times, particularly relating to air safety. One must be extremely careful how one phrases remarks about air safety; otherwise one is accused of being intemperate and making foolish remarks. Indeed, the leader of my party, the right honourable David Steel, was vigorously attacked by the Secretary of State for scaremongering. That occurred last October. But I think that in the light of events that have taken place since than it was quite wise of him to draw people's attention to the possible dangers to air safety.

Nothing can be absolutely safe. Not even lying in bed can be absolutely safe. An awful lot of people die in bed. Air travel will never be 100 per cent. safe, but we must do our best to ensure that human error is reduced to a minimum and that mechanical errors also are reduced to a minimum.

What is necessary is for the Government not to attack people for raising these questions but to ensure that the general public is given that reassurance. Yet in relation to the City airport that we are talking about I think that many of us who started with high hopes for it have become a little worried about someof the incidents which have taken place. There was the fact than an airliner which was using the new airport was near to being in collision with a light aircraft towing a glider over Kent. That was the incident that provoked the withdrawal of the service to which the noble Earl referred. That came as a considerable surprise to those of us who had felt that air traffic conditions would be at least at minimum levels of safety. That strikes me as something that really should have been taken into account long before the incident occurred.

The wider question of air safety in the South-East goes back to discussions which took place last week in this House at Question Time, when there seemed to be some conflict of opinion between the chairman of the British Airports Authority and the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority as to whether the skies and the runway capacity in the South-East were reaching saturation.

When we were talking about fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh terminals at Heathrow the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked where it would all end. We cannot go on for ever. Have we begun now to reach saturation point or are the commercial pressures going to produce a reduction in safety standards which certainly to us would be unacceptable

I do not think that that is the situation, but the Government must take seriously these kinds of comments. Setting aside some of the scarier stories in the popular press, the Government must recognise that there are genuine fears among the travelling public. It is the Government's job to make sure that the investment is there and that the levels of salary and support are there for people doing this extremely difficult and tedious job of ensuring that aircraft come in to Greater London safely. It is the Government's job to make sure that morale among air traffic controllers is improved. Clearly they are also negotiating in some of these discussions, but it is the general public who must be reassured.

I take the point that the noble Earl made about the Dartford bridge. This bears particularly on the question of the use of jet aircraft into the new airport. I know that assurances were given when the airport was first built that no jet aircraft would land there, but that was presumably on the basis of the degree of noise which would come from such aircraft. If it were possible to produce jet aircraft which were less noisy than some of the conventional aircraft which are at present using the airport, I personally would have no objection to those aircraft being allowed to use it. But the flightpath of those aircraft would be different from that of the current aircraft. That is where the Dartford crossing becomes a very important factor. I think that the existing aircraft can probably cope perfectly well with the new Dartford crossing bridge, but it is very doubtful whether the BAE 146 would be capable of coping with such a structure.

I hesitate to go back to a debate that we had on the Dartford Tunnel, when the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford, spoke in your Lordships' House. I supported the view then that the Government were being very shortsighted in insisting on having tolls on that tunnel on a motorway. It seems to me that there would be room for more flexibility if they would remove the tolls from the existing tunnel. Then there would be much greater capacity at peak hours and perhaps this bridge would not be needed quite so soon. But in any case I believe that the bridge is being discussed in another place about now. Therefore, it may be that what I am saying is a bit premature. Nevertheless, I think that the noble Earl is right to draw the matter to your Lordships' attention. There is a contradiction in building a new crossing at a point which appears to be liable to inhibit use of the new airport.

As regards access, many of us have been disappointed that access to the airport appears to be more restrictive than we had hoped. The extension of the Docklands Light Railway will help but it will not solve the problem totally. Perhaps the Minister can tell the House what steps the Government will take to ensure access to an asset which is particularly valuable to the City of London and which should be used to its maximum. I leave the matter there.

9.15 p.m.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for the widespread nature of his Question. Some noble Lords may think that that is a curious statement in that it will require a number of substantial statements from the Minister. However, the question is very wide, and wisely so.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, I give a general welcome to the development of the London City Airport. As the noble Earl has rightly said, it is an imaginative venture, less than six miles from the business centre of the City of London. It is an important development. Presumably the passenger traffic at the airport will be mainly businessmen moving to and from the City. Has there been any analysis of the passengers who have started to use the airport? I understand that the passenger limit is 1½ million per annum according to the planning permission which was originally given. Perhaps the Minister can tell the House something about the present likelihood of development. Is that figure likely to be achieved or will the traffic fall short of the planning permission limit?

As has been rightly said by both noble Lords speaking so far in the debate, there is criticism that the Docklands Light Railway has no station with direct access to the airport. In an oral Answer on 1st February, the Secretary of State admitted that that was the position. He agreed that the proposed extension will not go exactly to the airport. When is the extension likely to be completed? Will there be a shuttle bus service from the nearest Docklands Light Railway station to the airport? That would appear to be essential. I understand that the nearest railway station is Silvertown which is some 300 yards away. I cannot imagine businessmen wishing to trudge 300 yards in some of the rain that we get. Is a bus shuttle service now available from the Silvertown station to the airport?

I believe that there is also criticism of road surface transport to the airport. Some very optimistic times have been quoted for the time it takes a taxi to get from the City to the airport. Speaking as one who occasionally travels on the A.13, I feel that some of those claims are dubious. If we are to make a success of the airport, some improvement must be made to the approach by road.

The airport was not supposed to start operating until local homes had been fitted with double glazing. I understand that only secondary glazing was offered by developers. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether that problem has been overcome. As has been rightly said, larger aircraft cannot be used at the airport. It is limited to aircraft which can safely use the existing runway and meet the noise limits set out in the planning application. Again, on 1st February of this year the Secretary of State stated that the use of any jets at London City Airport would be first a matter for the airport owners. He said that that would also require an entirely new planning application and that no such application had been made. Does that mean that there will have to another planning application for the use of jets or larger planes? Would that be the case with larger planes which make undue noise?

As has rightly been said by both the noble Lords who have spoken, there is concern about the suspension bridge proposed for the East London river crossing, which I think it is generally agreed would present a very serious obstacle if a jet aircraft such as the British Aerospace 146 were to be used.

I understand from an oral Answer by the Secretary of State on 1st February that the necessary public inquiry has now been completed. Can we know when the report is likely to be available and whether it will be generally publicised?

I propose to quote from CAA press releases and answers to Questions in the other place in putting questions to the Minister to supplement those already presented to him. In a CAA news release of 17th November last there was a reminder that: The Public inquiry accepted that flights could not be accommodated in the controlled airspace of the London terminal area because of the density of traffic around Heathrow and Gatwick until major changes in the area had been completed in the early 1990s". That appears a very serious delay. I shall return to that point shortly.

The CAA also stated in that news release that: It would not be possible to accommodate London City and Biggin Hill aircraft in the London terminal area without extending controlled air space". It also stated that: So as not to disrupt air traffic flows to and from Gatwick and Heathrow. aircraft departing from London City Airport will fly outside controlled airspace before joining the airways system some distance away...There are arrangements where public transport flights operate outside controlled airspace, prior to joining the airways system, and those operating at the City Airport are similar to those which apply at a number of other United Kingdom airports In that statement the CAA also referred to the radar service which is provided for traffic from Heathrow to London City Airport operating below the controlled airspace. However, I find that on 4th December last Mr. Peter Bottomley, the Under-Secretary of State in a Written Answer (at col. 746 of Commons Hansard) stated that the radar service for: aircraft in uncontrolled air space has been available 66 per cent. of the time. Use of the service is not mandatory and it is provided on an on-request basis subject to the capacity of the air traffic unit". I think that we should ask the Minister exactly what that means. Does it mean that if a request is not made this radar service is not applicable, and what happens for the other third of the time? That is a serious question. On the same day, 4th December 1987, Mr. Peter Bottomley gave another Written Answer in another place: The CAA has told us that the NATS is not at present able to introduce procedures to include safely London City Airport traffic within the London terminal manoeuvring area (LTMA). Moreoever, it could not yet be handled there without an unacceptable effect on Gatwick and Heathrow traffic. The statement emphasised again that that was made absolutely clear during the planning of the airport, and Mr. Bottomley added in his Written Answer that: It is unlikely that NATS will be able to implement the necessary changes so as to include London City Ariport within the London terminal manoeuvring area before the end of 1988". [Official Report, Commons, 4/12/87; col. 744]. This is where my complete innocence of air services comes in, because at one stage there was a reference to its not being able to come into effect until 1990s. What is the difference between the London terminal area and the London terminal manoeuvring area?

The answer to that question will depend on whether I can fully accept that even by the end of 1988 we can have the necessary changes. However, it means that we shall have to wait either until the end of 1988 before we have that essential safety change or until 1990, a date that has been mentioned elsewhere.

On the same day, 4th December, the Minister was asked to give Written Answers to what I thought were two very important points. First, he was asked whether the Secretary of State, will institute an inquiry into the dangers that arise from flying in uncontrolled air space over London The second question asked what was the Secretary of State's policy, for the future control of air movements in uncontrolled air space over the London area The Minister, Mr. Peter Bottomley, replied that: The Civil Aviation Authority is responsible, through the National Air Traffc Services, for all aspects of airspace management. Any decision to institute an inquiry into flying in uncontrolled air space over London is a matter solely for the authority".—[Officiol Report. Commons, 4/12/87; col. 746.] I should like to ask the Minister whether the Civil Aviation Authority has any say in that, and, if he considers an inquiry is necessary, whether he will instruct NATS that one should be carried out. Surely in the light of what has happened recently such an inquiry is absolutely essential.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that the last thing one wants to do is to create any nervousness or panic, but in view of what we have now learnt about near misses it is obvious that flying in uncontrolled air space before linking up with the main air space system is something which must give cause for concern.

In a subsequent Written Answer on 19th January this year, the same Minister, Mr. Peter Bottomley, stated that the CAA: has no comprehensive information of the amount and categories of aircraft flying in the uncontrolled air space below and surrounding the London terminal control area, but that the authority monitors air traffic in uncontrolled air space on a sample basis so as to establish requirements for specific air traffic services".—[Official Report, Commons, 19/1/88; col. 697.] Precisely what does that mean? Does it mean that the CAA, as this reply states, has no real influence on the "amount and categories of aircraft" that are flying in the uncontrolled area above the City airport? If so, that appears to me to be a very dangerous situation.

My final reference is to a press release of the Civil Aviation Authority dated 14th January this year, in which it is stated: Outside controlled air space it is for the airlines to decide which routes they wish to fly in consultation with the National Air Traffic Service I ask again: where does the Civil Aviation Authority stand? That same press release continues: Changes in any extension of the controlled air space would require extensive consultation with other aviation interests and cannot he achieved in a short period of time Exactly what does that mean? Precisely what would be the other aviation interests involved?

It may seem from all those questions that I am trying to strike at the London City Airport. I believe that it is a very important development and we have to ensure that there is the best possible access to it and the best possible facilities for business people who wish to use it, but we must also ensure that the question of uncontrolled air space is satisfactorily dealt with.

9.29 p.m.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, the House is indeed grateful to my noble friend Lord Kinnoull for asking this Question, which bears on a matter of such intense public interest as air safety. The general question of air safety is a topic that has greatly exercised the press and other media in recent weeks and it is good that we should have this opportunity for a short debate, albeit in the narrow context of London City Airport. I am glad to have the opportunity both to set the record straight and to try to allay any remaining fears that recent public discussions have provoked.

I must start with the general proposition, since this will condition much of what I say: the safety of operations at London City Airport and the air space used by its aircraft are matters solely for the Independent Civil Aviation Authority. That an independent body should be responsible for aerodrome standards and safety and air traffic control among other matters was a direct result of Parliament's legislation in 1971 which established the authority. It was foreshadowed in the then Labour Government's White Paper of 1969 which followed the Edwards Report.

Let me now turn to London City Airport. The airport, as has been said today, is privately owned by John Mowlem plc and has been operational since 26th October 1987. At present air services are operated to Brussels and Paris. Other route licences exist but have not yet been taken up. Only aircraft capable of short take off and landing performance and which can meet the very strict noise controls may use the airport.

London City Airport is licensed for public use by the Civil Aviation Authority. That means that it must fully meet the authority's requirements for safety and airport emergency services. It is of course, as noble Lords will realise, airport, fire and emergency services which must bear the main responsibility for rescue in the unlikely event of an accident at or close to the airport. In such circumstances speed of reaction is essential. That is why the authority, in fulfilling its licensing functions, set such store by effective on-airport fire and rescue services. External services—particularly ambulance and police—are also vitally important once the most immediate emergency has been dealt with. This is why the authority also needs to be satisfied with the access points of the airport, to which my noble friend referred. The authority would not license an airport if it were not satisfied on all these matters.

Let me now turn from aerodrome safety to safety in the air. Perhaps I should preface my remarks by recalling that on 18th December 1987, following suggestions by one of the operators. Brymon, that flights below controlled airspace on the London City—Paris route could be unsafe, the CAA provisionally suspended such flights pending the outcome of an inquiry. Flights below controlled airspace are necessary at present because the National Air Traffic Services has not yet been able to contain London City traffic within the London terminal area controlled airspace, although I stress that such operations are provided with radar surveillance. In its conclusion the inquiry recommended three alternative routes and the airlines concerned confirmed that they were competent to operate flights on these routes. Services restarted on 20th January and have operated with no further problems. Indeed, noble Lords will be pleased to hear that traffic on Continental routes out of London City Airport is steadily increasing and the operators are reported to have in mind adding further services.

The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, referred to the air misses which had been the subject of this inquiry, of which there were three reported. Two were preliminarily assessed as category C, which means sighting, no risk of collision, while the third might possibly emerge as a category B, a possible risk of collision. It is worth getting the record straight on that point.

Unfortunately, National Air Traffic Services cannot yet extend the London terminal area to include London City Airport. This fact was made clear by the authority at the planning application into London City in 1983. So London City traffic needs to fly below controlled airspace when near London, albeit, as I said, with the benefit of radar surveillance. I can tell noble Lords, however, that the authority is consulting affected interests about extending controlled airspace in the South-East. This might lead to a more comprehensive solution for London City towards the end of this year.

If there has been any confusion over the dates it is because NATS is doing its best to improve on its earlier estimates. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked me what the other affected interests might be. They would be general aviation, private flying and other people operating in the area, including gliders.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. My intervention touches on the point that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, made. There seems to be some conflict between what he said about 66 per cent. radar surveillance and what the Minister has said. Are we talking about the same thing? The Minister said that there was radar surveillance. However, I understood the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, to say that this was only 66 per cent. of the time.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot answer that question. I must check the matter and write to the noble Lords. I was under the impression that radar surveillance is continually available but if I am wrong I shall put the record straight.

More generally, I should remind noble Lords that the Civil Aviation Authority is continually striving to improve the air traffic control system. One hundred and twenty-five million pounds was spent on this in the last five years and a further £200 million will be spent in the next five years. In the slightly longer term a centralisation of the control function—that is bringing approach and en route navigation together for London airports—will substantially increase the air traffic control system capacity in the mid-1990s.

As to the long-term future of London City Airport, that must be very largely in the hands of its private sector owners. Clearly any further developments of the airport must be the subjects of' new planning applications. No such application has been lodged. If one is it will he dealt with in accordance with the planning laws. Likewise, the long-term viability of the airport is a matter for its owners.

As regards the long-term safety of the airport, I have already indicated the proposed improvements in air traffic control to deal with the ever-increasing volume of air traffic in the busy South-East region. I have no doubt at all that the Civil Aviation Authority, whose standards of aerodrome and air navigation safety are among the highest in the world, will continue its expert surveillance of London City Airport in just the same way as it does for every other licensed UK airport.

Perhaps it will he appropriate for me to add a more general reference on air safety. It is a topical issue and a matter which is of concern to the public. The recent reported air misses between airliners over Kent and Essex have caused much concern. Noble Lords will already know that, following an approach from the chairman of the CAA, the Chief Inspector of Accidents has ordered an investigation into the incident two weeks ago over Kent. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will publish the chief inspector's report and it will be the responsibility of the CAA to take action on any recommendations that may be made. Of course any relevant implications that arise during the investigation will be passed immediately to the authority and need not wait until the final report is issued. It is for the Chief Inspector of Accidents to decide what the Air Accident Investigations Branch is to investigate. He did not regard yesterday's incident as meriting an AAIB investigation. Having seen some of the details of' the incident, I believe that reports in the press were somewhat exaggerated and that it was not as close an incident as was suggested. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to assume from the incident that flying over the UK is becoming more dangerous.

Facts show that generally the safety trend is improving. For instance, the number of commercial aircraft involved in air misses which were considered to be risk-bearing fell from 45 in 1977 to 15 in 1986, despite a massive increase in traffic over the period, such that over 1 million flights now pass through the London Air Traffic Control Centre airspace each year—a remarkable achievement.

Turning to surface access to the airport, I should like to point out that since the early 1980s, as part of its contribution towards the redevelopment of docklands, the Department of Transport has included in the national trunk road programme a number of schemes to improve access from all directions. That applies particularly to the recently opened South Woodford to Barking relief road, which extends the North Circular Road down to the A.13, and the proposed East London river crossing, which would provide access from the south. The immediate local road access into the airport is being rapidly improved by the Docklands Development Corporation. At the same time a Bill to extend the Docklands Light Railway to Becton is due to start its Committee stage on 1st March in the other place. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked whether there would be a shuttle bus between the airport and the proposed extension. That will be a matter of consideration for London Regional Transport and/or London City Airport.

I should just like to go on to the subject of the East London River Crossing. My noble friend and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, were wrong when they talked about the new Dartford Bridge. That has no possible effect. It is not very near to the airport at all. The cause of concern, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, rightly said, was the proposed East London river crossing. I cannot comment on the implications of that at the moment. My right honourable friend has received the inspector's report and is studying it together with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. They will announce their decision and publish the report as soon as possible, but it will naturally take some time to consider the report of what was an unprecedentedly long inquiry.

The Earl of Kinnoull

My Lords, before my noble friend moves from that point, I am sorry if he felt that there was a misunderstanding. The point I wanted to make, and which I hope he can comment on, is that any structure which in the future could limit the natural development of an airport is very important in planning terms and I hope that it will he considered. I hope he can say that this point will be looked at very carefully when full consideration is given to the scheme.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, I cannot comment, because the report is in the hands of my right honourable friend at the moment.

A further consideration was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Tordoff and Lord Underhill, about the possible use of jets, in particular BAE 146, at London City. There has never been an assurance that jets would not be used at the airport. The assurance was with regard to the amount of noise which would be created. But I understand that the use of the BAE146 would be likely to involve further development of London City and amend present planning conditions. No new planning applications have been received and whether to make an application is a matter for the owners. If they do, it will be considered in accordance with planning procedures and laws.

The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked me about the number of passengers using London City Airport or the limit in the planning permission. I do not know whether any figure exists as such for passengers. There is a maximum number of movements allowed per year, which is 30,160, and a limit of no more than 120 a day and 40 on Sundays. That is for the particular plane in use at the moment, which is the Dash 7. There would be a different number of movements for a different type of aircraft.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, am I not correct that the planning application originally provided for 1½ million passengers per annum? If I am incorrect about that I apologise, but I thought that was the position and I wondered to what extent passenger development had moved towards that figure.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, as I said, I do not have a figure for the number of passengers allowed for in the planning permission. My own figure is that present capacity would be around 1 million passengers per year, which I cannot as I stand here relate to the number of aircraft movements, but it may be possible to have some information on that.

I am conscious that I have not answered all the questions which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked about air traffic control in the area. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, this is a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority and not for the Department of Transport; it is its statutory role. I shall certainly draw the attention of the CAA to the debate which has taken place tonight and it may be that it can write to the noble Lord with the answers to some of his questions. Neither have I been able to answer the noble Lord's question about double-glazing in the immediate area. Again, I shall look into that matter and endeavour to reply.

As noble Lords have said, this is an exciting development and I can assure your Lordships that the Government do believe in the future of London City Airport and welcome it as not only bringing a rejuvenation to that part of docklands but also, in a small way, alleviating some of the capacity problems in the South-East area. I should like to repeat my thanks to my noble friend for having raised the matter this evening.

House adjourned at a quarter before ten o'clock.