HC Deb 19 March 1973 vol 853 cc10-1W
Mr. David Steel

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which regulations governing flying procedures he proposes to implement in order to reduce noise levels in the north-east arc of the proposed new runway at Turnhouse Airport; and what representations he has received from the British Air Line Pilots Association on this matter.

Mr. Onslow

Unless and until Edinburgh Airport is designated under Section 29 of the Civil Aviation Act 1971, responsibility for introducing measures to control aircraft noise at the airport rests with the airport authority and not with my right hon. Friend. In any case, noise abatement regulations would not be introduced without careful prior examination and consultation with others closely concerned, particularly the Civil Aviation Authority and airlines. A letter from the British Air Line Pilots Association has recently been received at official level seeking information and assurances on this subject; a reply is under consideration.

Mr. David Steel

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish the estimated costs to the taxpayer of the British Airports Authority's scheme for the new runway at Turnhouse Airport and the comparative cost of the alternative scheme proposed by the runway joint committee, taking into account the BAA public safety zone restriction at Newbridge.

Mr. Onslow

During the course of the public inquiry into the development of Turnhouse the costs of the British Airports Authority's scheme including the new runway were estimated at £9.7 million at 1971 prices and those of the first alternative runway alignment at an extra £1.7 million to £2.75 million at 1971 prices. No detailed estimates have been made of the additional cost of the second alternative alignment to avoid significant restriction on industrial development at Newbridge but the reporter accepted it would cost more than the first alternative. The Government is contributing three-quarters of the capital cost of the airport development and would have had to bear the whole of the additional cost of an alternative runway alignment.