HL Deb 12 July 1988 vol 499 cc708-10

2.57 p.m.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether their present view on the question whether the agreement between the British Airports Authority and the West Sussex County Council on the subject of the construction of the second runway at Gatwick Airport is binding on Her Majesty's Government is that recently expressed in this House by the Lord Brabazon of Tara (H.L. Deb. llth May, col. 1122) or that stated by the Lord Trefgarne in 1984 (H.L. Deb. 23rd May, col. 221).

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara)

My Lords, there is no conflict between the two statements. The agreement was between West Sussex County Council and the then British Airports Authority. It does not bind the Government but it binds the parties. My statement of 1lth May reflected that legal position and the Government's policy reaffirmed in the White Paper of 1985 that a second Gatwick runway should not be constructed.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply and for making it clear that the Government are not bound by the agreement between the then chairman of the British Airports Authority and the West Sussex County Council. Is he aware that some of his supplementary answers on llth May did not make that point clear? My purpose in putting the Question was to clear up that matter so that when the government of the day face the reality that a second runway must be built, they will not be faced with any unnecessary obstacles.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, I am happy to clarify the situation in so far as there was any doubt. However. I do not think that there should have been any. Since my noble friend Lord Trefgarne made his remarks in 1984, we have had the White Paper of 1985. Perhaps I may quote one sentence from paragraph 5.22. The Government therefore reaffirms the policy that Gatwick should develop to its full potential as a single runway airport and that a second runway should not be constructed". That is the Government's policy at the moment.

Baroness Burton of Coventry

My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on being able to believe that two entirely contradictory statements mean the same thing. With reference to the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, to me of May 1984—I am sure that he knows what is coming—the Minister has said that the Government did not consider themselves bound by the agreement reached between the British Airports Authority and the West Sussex County Council. Is the Minister aware that, going back some little time, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, was honest enough to admit to me in the House that what you say depends on which Dispatch Box you are speaking from? In his reply to me in May 1984, he was speaking for the Government. Would it not be better, therefore, to keep to the same principle?

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, I do not believe that there is any conflict between what I said on llth May and what was said by my noble friend in 1984. In any case, that matter may be irrelevant. We have a White Paper and the policy has been quite clearly stated.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, is it not the case that concern has been expressed about the problem in the South-East? That problem is not the shortage of runway space but rather the availability of safe air space capacity. Has not the chairman of the CAA expressed concern along those lines? Would it not be advisable to have early consultations in which the CAA, the airports authority, Eurocontrol and scheduled and charter flight airlines are involved?

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, we are straying slightly from the Question on the Order Paper. We went over this ground only last week and we shall go over it again this coming Friday when I have a Question to answer on airspace congestion. However, I would just point out that only last week my right honourable friend the Secretary of State asked the CAA for advice under Section 16 of the Civil Aviation Act on the airport capacity to 2005 and on strategies to make good use of air space in the short to medium term.

Lord Harvey of Prestbury

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that even if it were decided to build a second runway it would he quite impossible to do so because the buildings have been so placed to prevent that happening?

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, I think that that is quite true. It is my understanding that the new north terminal has been built on the site on which a possible second runway might have been built.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there would be plenty of space if new ground were taken, and that many people in the aviation world regard the 1985 White Paper as now being completely out of date?

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, no doubt we shall have a clearer view when the Civil Aviation Authority responds formally to the formal request made by my right honourable friend only last week.

Baroness Burton of Coventry

My Lords, has the Minister any idea at all—and I imagine that as Minister for Civil Aviation he must have—of the damage which has been done to the civil aviation industry by the bigoted attitude of the British Airports Authority on this matter of the second runway and by the weakness of the Government in refusing to do anything about it for purely political reasons?

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness overstretches the point somewhat. As the noble Lord, Lord Graham, pointed out a moment ago and as I have said from this Dispatch Box on several occasions recently, the main problem at the moment is lack of airspace capacity in the South-East of England. That is a problem that needs to be resolved before there can be any question of another runway at Gatwick or indeed anywhere else in the South-East.