Airports (Traffic Distribution) (Hansard, 20 October 1989)

§ Mr. Parkinson

I have today written to Mr. Christopher Tugendhat, chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority, responding to the authority's advice in CAP 559. Copies of my letter have been placed in the Library.

I think it important to place this in the context of the strong growth in traffic at the regional airports. Developments like the new domestic module and terminal 2 at Manchester airport, Birmingham's new terminal, and an ongoing programme of improvements at other regional airports, are all evidence of the readiness and ability of the airports outside the south-east to take action to meet the growing demand. Expenditure at regional airports over the past decade has exceeded £300 million, and in the years immediately ahead can confidently be expected to increase by at least this much again.

At the same time, there is much activity in the south-east. The new terminal at Stansted and the redevelopment of Heathrow's terminal 3 are notable, but small airports are also investing: Manston for example, and, on the business aviation front, significant advances are being made at Farnborough and Biggin Hill.

It is equally important to view CAP 559 in the light of the wider-ranging work on which the authority will be reporting to me next summer. This includes examining the role of airports outside the south-east, the possible need for and location of a new south-east runway, and the potential for introducing a more market-oriented means of dealing with the capacity problems at Heathrow and Gatwick.

Against this background, I have accepted the authority's principal recommendation that no new traffic distribution rules should be made for the London area airports. I have also accepted the authority's recommendation that I should formally set aside the two "deferred rules"—concerning priority at Gatwick for scheduled traffic, and limits on service frequencies at Heathrow—which the then Secretary of State said in 1986 he would be prepared to make when advised of the need.

I have decided not to make the two modifications to the present rules which the authority suggested. While I recognise that permitting series charter flights at Heathrow on a limited basis could be regarded as an easing of regulation, it would not significantly affect the overall 259W balance of supply and demand for runway capacity in the London area. I wish to consider this suggestion further when I have seen the outcome of the CAA's wider-ranging work next year.

I am of course anxious to encourage the important business aviation sector, and I recognise the difficulties it has in the London area. But the second proposed modification, that business and corporate aviation should take precedence over other general aviation, would introduce a new restriction on a new class of traffic. Because other general aviation movements are very few at Heathrow and Gatwick, it would in practice provide no real benefit. In these circumstances I do not consider the case for change sufficiently compelling to justify the introduction of further regulation.

The authority suggested a modest relaxation in the noise restrictions at Heathrow and Gatwick. Noise is always a sensitive issue. I believe that the Government struck a reasonable balance in the night noise regime which was introduced last year, and which was to run until 1992–93.

I remain committed to improving the night noise climate around Heathrow and Gatwick, and to reducing aircraft noise generally, whilst recognising that undue burdens must not be imposed on the aviation industry.

Whilst I have considered the authority's argument for a relaxation in the night restrictions, I recognise that respondents were divided in their views. I take the view that the present night noise arrangements should remain unchanged.