Heathrow Airport: Fifth Terminal (Hansard, 21 January 1999)

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, the inquiry into the proposed Fifth Terminal at Heathrow, which is 694 considering 37 planning applications and orders, is one of several inquiries held into major infrastructure proposals in the past decade or so. I appreciate the frustration felt by many at the length of such inquiries. The Modernising Planning policy statement made in July 1998 reiterated the Governments's manifesto commitment to simplify and speed up the planning process for major infrastructure projects of vital national interest. We are considering a variety of options and will publish our proposals in a consultation paper in the near future.

§ The Earl of Kinnoull
My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, I am sure he agrees that four years for any public inquiry and a further two years for the inspector to write his report is an exceptional period of time. It will be six years before the Minister has even an opportunity to decide what to do. Does he agree that since airport inquiries are very contentious it would be of tremendous value if the Government introduced a national airports policy for guidance? Can he say what the inquiry has cost the public purse, both central government and local government, to date?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, on the last point the cost to central government is approximately £9 million to date. I understand that a more or less equivalent amount has been expended by local government. I agree with the noble Earl that this inquiry has taken an incredibly long time. That is why we are looking at streamlining and simplifying the procedures. As to a general airports policy, we need to take into account the outcome of this inquiry but then intend to develop an overall airports policy for public discussion. Noble Lords will have an opportunity to debate aspects of that policy in about 10 days' time.

§ Lord Annan
My Lords, is it not necessary for the Government to review planning procedures, which are very time-consuming? Does the noble Lord recall the Roskill Commission set up in the 1960s? That commission proposed that the third London airport should be sited at Stansted. Having reported a year-and-a-half after the inquiry began, at an expenditure of £1¾ million, the Roskill Commission suggested that the airport should be sited at Cublington. That proposal was turned down by the then Conservative government. Next, it was suggested that the airport should be sited at the end of the Thames estuary and that the road connecting it to London should run through the East End and terminate in the City. That was turned down. In the end Stansted was chosen. Does the Minister consider that that is a reasonable way in which to proceed?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, as described by the noble Lord I find it very difficult to regard that as a reasonable way to proceed. I recall some of the saga. I visited Foulness in the expectation that one day that site might be an airport. We are all concerned that this procedure 695 is too long and needs to be streamlined and simplified, but that at the same time the public must have an opportunity to express their view.

§ Lord Clinton-Davis
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the statements he made, today and earlier, will be generally welcomed? There need not be any dereliction of duty towards environmental matters. But is it not plain common sense that the procedures currently undertaken are too lengthy and inhibit our economic effort? Will my noble friend contrast the actions that his department has already taken—we shall have an opportunity to debate them soon—with the inertia which, over 18 years, overcame the former administration in this and other respects?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, as always I am happy to endorse my noble friend's views. We need a more strategic approach.
On planning procedures, my colleague, Dick Caborn, is considering the whole range of planning procedures. However, noble Lords need to be aware that the vast majority of public inquiries last a week. It is the big inquiries which pose a serious problem.

§ Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I have to declare an interest as a resident of west London under the flight path to Heathrow.
On a more general point, does the Minister agree that the adversarial nature of planning inquiries does no good to our society? In this case, it appears to have cost the applicants around £60 million. The Minister gave a figure of £9 million as regards the opponents, including cash-strapped local authorities; my figure is £4 million. Either way, there is a great imbalance in the resources available to the parties.

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, I suspect that some of the imbalance is inevitable, and far too many resources on all sides are expended. The adversarial aspect is bound to be present in some of the controversial issues, but the procedures should minimise it and the facts should, as far as possible, be agreed.

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, will the Minister accept that on this side of the House we welcome the possibility of a change in the planning procedures for major projects? Will the Minister remind his noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis that the former government got through the planning procedures some major projects including, for example, the Channel Tunnel which links this country to Europe, of which the noble Lord is so fond?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, I, and no doubt my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, greatly welcome the Channel Tunnel. From some of their comments, I am not sure whether all noble Lords opposite do the same.

§ Lord Ampthill
My Lords, the noble Lord on the Opposition Front Bench seems to forget that before the transport and works legislation the procedure went before both Houses of Parliament. We could have dealt 696 with Terminal 5 in another place and this House in 18 months without the slightest difficulty. Will the Government consider repealing the transport and works legislation?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, the noble Lord rightly reminds us that the parliamentary procedure is an alternative. It is one of the options in the paper.