It shall be the duty of the Maplin Development Authority, before beginning any work of reclamation authorised by this Act, to consult with the Civil Aviation Authority and with the British Airports Authority about the likely future levels of aircraft noise at existing airports having regard to technological developments in aircraft construction and airport traffic management and to consult with the National Ports Council about the likely effect of the seaport development on the trade of other United Kingdom ports.—[Mr. Oakes.]

Brought up and read the First time.

4.5 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Oakes (Widnes)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker

It will be convenient to take with this new clause the following new clauses:

New Clause 2—[Duty to consult on aerospace developments.]

New Clause 3—[Duty to consult on national ports policy.]

We shall also take Amendment No. 3, in Clause 2, page 2, line 18, at end insert: 'provided that such land is not used for purposes which will cause noise nuisance to persons living in Essex and Kent'.

Mr. Oakes

I take it that it will be in order, Mr. Speaker, if separate Divisions are called for on new Clause 1 and new Clause 2?

Mr. Speaker

I will allow separate Divisions on new Clause 1 and new Clause 2.

Mr. Oakes

I know that many hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to speak on this series of new clauses. I therefore intend to open the debate very briefly, despite the fundamental importance to the whole idea of the Maplin development of these clauses.

First, I will seek to set out what the new clause proposes to do. Secondly, I will mention what differentiates it, albeit narrowly, from new Clauses 2 and 3. These clauses are rightly taken together because their object is basically the same—to require the Maplin Development Authority to consult, and to think deeply about the results of that consultation, before embarking upon reclamation work which could cost the nation hundreds, if not thousands, of millions of pounds. Thirdly, I will set out some of the many reasons why the clause has become necessary since the Committee stage of the Bill and why this House, which is rightly concerned with the effectiveness of enormous public expenditure quite across normal party political lines, should decide that it is imperative to insert the clause in the Bill.

The clause seeks to confer a statutory duty on the Maplin Development Authority to look before it leaps. It seeks to require the authority to consult the Civil Aviation Authority and the British Airports Authority with special reference to the level of future aircraft noise at existing London airports in the light of the reduced engine noise in aeroplanes already in service—not projected engine noise or future technological developments—and in the light of advanced techniques in moving aircraft at those airports. The clause also requires the Maplin Development Authority to consult the National Ports Council on the tremendous implications of the development of a huge seaport on other United Kingdom ports—a matter which has never been debated by this House or by anybody else. The clause requires that this shall be done immediately, before any physical reclamation work begins.

New Clauses 2 and 3 have a similar object. They envisage continuous consultation between these statutory bodies. I do not disagree with that—it may not be a bad thing—but the House would be disingenuous to imagine that the Maplin Development Authority or any Minister, after the expenditure of hundreds of millions of pounds, would stop work on a half-completed Maplin which would stand out like a disused monstrous folly off the Esesx coast, although evidence might be given to the contrary in the light of developments. The consultation required by the clause must take place before any reclamation work begins, so that the Maplin Development Authority and the Minister are well aware of the future implications of the noise levels at the existing airports.

There are reasons why consultation has now become necessary. Even since the Roskill inquiry three years ago in 1970, there has been a dramatic change in the opinion of experts about the effects of aircraft coming in and out of London. We must remember that the Roskill inquiry decided against Maplin and based its views on the engine noise of aircraft then in existence, with some projections for the future in terms of larger aircraft. Aircraft have become much larger and faster than Roskill realised at that time. The fact is that the techniques in the handling of aircraft at Heathrow and Gatwick and in reducing the "peakiness" of the number of aircraft which can use those airports have improved enormously since the report was published.

Since the Second Reading of the Bill the Civil Aviation Authority has produced a report which clearly shows that the Maplin project is not an essential project. It is desirable in some ways, but it is not essential so far as the CAA report is concerned. I know that the Secretary of State for the Environment and his Under-Secretary of State have tended to cast away the decisions of the CAA report but that report demolishes the essential need for an airport at Maplin.

Mr. Ronald Bell (Buckinghamshire, South)

Would the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) care to define what he means by "essential"? He sits for a constituency somewhere in the north of England, and he will appreciate that I represent a constituency quite close to Heathrow. Has he any conception of what my constituents and people in the surrounding neighbourhoods endure and does he regard that as an element of essentiality?

Mr. Oakes

The hon. and learned Gentleman is ahead of me, and I intend to deal with that point a little later in my remarks. When I use the word "essential", I refer to the actual number of aircraft that come into an airport. I shall deal with the question of noise in a few moments. The hon. and learned Gentleman is right to raise the subject of noise, and of course Members on all sides of the House are extremely concerned about noise nuisance at existing airports, and that aspect of the problem must never be forgotten.

The Civil Aviation Authority report showed that in 1985, five years after Maplin commences its operations, there will still be a considerable surplus of runway capacity at both those airports without major runway developments, although there may need to be some developments in terms of terminal buildings.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Environment has said that his Department is concerned not only with the physical capacity of an airport—indeed, the Under-Secretary of State in Standing Committee aptly said that from the point of view of usage—the most desirable place for an airport may well be in the middle of Hyde Park—but also with the whole question of noise and with the dreadful effects on the lives of people who have to live in the neighbourhood of existing airports. It is on that ground that the Government rest their case for the Maplin development. If that is so, and if Maplin has even a substantial effect on national noise levels in the 1980s at existing airports. then it may be wise to spend these enormous amounts of public money, but even since the CAA report was published it has become clear from many articles written by experts—basing their figures on Government statistics and not on figments of their own imagination—that Maplin will have a marginal effect on noise levels at existing airports.

We must look at the projections in terms of existing aircraft by way of size and quietness, and I refer to aircraft in service now rather than future aircraft which may be affected by technological developments. We can expect developments from a noise point of view as well as from the point of view of the pressing demands on aviation spirit which will be required to fly those aeroplanes. Most of the research carried out in the past on noise levels which may lead to a reduction in those levels has been as a result of the spin-off from finding ways of reducing spirit consumption.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Toby Jessel (Twickenham)

Would the hon. Gentleman include in his concept of noise levels the frequency of flights?

Mr. Oakes

Yes, the frequency of flights is important, but research shows that the major cause of nuisance is not so much the frequency of flights as the amount of noise generated by a given aircraft. That is the main creator of nuisance. Reducing the argument to an absurdity, if all aircraft were completely silent nobody would care how many aircraft came in and out of the country or at what time they came in. I emphasise that the main problem is the noise generated by a particular aircraft.

What the reports clearly say is that quieter aircraft are coming into existence and will increasingly come into existence during this decade, and that in the middle of the next decade when Maplin would take effect the noise nuisance index, however accurate or inaccurate that may be. shows that hardly any effect would be caused by the existence of Maplin, and indeed that most of the reduction in noise levels at existing airports arises from the fact that quieter aircraft are using present airports.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins (Putney)

I want to try to help my hon. Friend by preventing him from persisting in error. He appears to be mistaken on the question of frequency. The fact is that much of the research into the subject of the impact of noise nuisance on the individual shows that frequency of aircraft movements is an extremely important factor. I am sure my hon. Friend will accept that a person can put up fairly easily with a fairly loud noise once an hour, but if that noise takes place sixty times an hour it becomes intolerable.

Mr. Oakes

I am not saying that frequency is unimportant and is to be disregarded. I am saying that the noise generated by an aircraft—the sort of level of noise of which my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) and his constituents are well aware, at a high pitch and a high rate—is far more jarring on the nerves than is noise heard more frequently overhead in a given area.

I should like to quote from an article in The Times on 18th May 1973, appropriately headed "Time to melt the Maplin snowball" and written by Mr. C. D. Foster, head of the Centre for Urban Economics at the London School of Economics. Mr. Foster writes: The Department of Trade and Industry has already mapped the effect this would have —that is to say, the introduction of quieter aircraft— on reducing the noise expected from Maplin. Rough estimates by Mr. Flowerdew at the London School of Economics, based entirely on official figures, suggest that the replacement of the older aircraft by the new will alone nearly halve the noise from Heathrow. The noise levels at Kensington will be like those in Hampstead, and at Hounslow like those now experienced at Barnes. This will be a persistent, sustained improvement over the next 12 years. In the light of expert opinion such as that and the research carried out by Mr. Flowerdew, who was the Assistant Director of Research for the Roskill Commission, and in the light of opinion of other experts, can the Government allow the Maplin Development Authority to go ahead regardless of these opinions as to the noise levels and future noise levels at existing airports?

It is not a matter of the Opposition saying that there should be a third inland airport. It is not a matter of the Opposition or hon. Members opposite who support the clause saying that we have a cynical and total disregard for those who live near Heathrow or Gatwick under the strain of this enormous noise and that we will not have it exported to Maplin. In terms of the aircraft that we have in service the noise levels at those airports will be reduced considerably.

If the Maplin Development Authority must consult the Civil Aviation Authority, the British Airports Authority and the National Ports Council before proceeding with any reclamation work, as the clause requires, without disadvantage to the people who live in and around the existing airports, we in this House may be able to avoid needless expenditure on the most inefficient way that this House could devise of reducing aircraft noise or helping people in those areas.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths)

Since the hon. Gentleman has said what the Opposition do not favour, I hope that he will say before he draws his remarks to a conclusion whether it is the policy of the Opposition that the growth in the numbers of aircraft and air passengers shall be handled at the existing London airports. Is that the position, because I think that we need to know?

Mr. Oakes

For want of time I have not discussed in any detail the important rôle which could be played by regional airports where people want them, whereas the Government insist on everyone being drawn to the South-East whether they live in Birmingham, Manchester, Yorkshire or any other part of the country. The other point is that we are concerned in the clause to deal with the level of aircraft noise at the existing airports. No one is greatly worried about the use of the existing airports providing that the noise nuisance there is reduced considerably, if possible even to the point of eliminating it. I am concerned to see that the Maplin Development Authority at least considers that.

I ask all hon. Members who care about public expenditure to support the clause. It will not wreck the Maplin Development Bill, no matter what the Opposition may think of that. If the Government resist the clause they are acting like ostriches and refusing, either themselves or to allow the Maplin Development Authority, to consider the implications of what is being done in the light of modern knowledge and technological advance in aircraft noise and its frequency.

Mr. Robert Adley (Bristol, North-East)

Earlier this afternoon we had the introduction of a Ten-Minute Rule Bill by the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Thomas Cox) asking that hon. Members should declare their interests. My interest in this subject is that of the taxpayer. In all our discussions about the location of new airports the resulting public expenditure is sometimes forgotten.

A number of my hon. Friends have put their names to new Clause 2 which seeks to set up a monitoring device on the progress of the Maplin development as the land is reclaimed.

As the Bill stands at present, there are four groups of objectors among hon. Members. There are those with constituency interests in Essex and Kent. There are those who would like to see the development of regional airports, with regional policies being brought more into the Government's consideration of these matters. There are those who are concerned about public expenditure. There are those who have studied the aviation aspects of the problem, especially the noise problems to which the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) has just referred.

May I briefly trace back the way in which the decision that we are discussing was reached? As the hon. Member for Widnes said, Roskill did not recommend Foulness. He short-listed four sites, three of which were inland, and which rightly and naturally had strong lobbies against them, and one of which appeared at the time anyway to be a decision which could be taken arousing comparatively little objection. That was the negative way in which the decision was taken initially. However, as time has gone by, more and more people have begun to question not only the way in which the decision was taken but the full implications of it.

This is not and certainly should not be a party political issue, and those of my hon. Friends who have put their names to new Clause 2 have little in common other than our concern to see some form of monitoring device set up as a result of the clause. The hon. Member for Widnes suggested that new Clauses I and 2 were not very different. However, I emphasise to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State that new Clause 2 is a modest one which is designed only as a monitoring device. It recognises that the House has given a Second Reading to a Bill containing powers to reclaim land. I am not interested in trying to kill the Bill with the clause. I am simply interested in doing everything possible to see that the real and continuing interests of the taxpayer are protected.

If the clause is accepted, I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to appreciate that all that it does is to give the Government an opportunity from now until any time in the future to take account of real developments and not theoretical ones, if necessary to call a halt to the proceedings, and if necessary not to spend money. I should have thought that that would have some appeal to the Treasury.

Very often the Concorde, Maplin and the Channel Tunnel are compared. The Concorde project has been going for 11 years, prior to which there were five years of deep thought which went into the project. Many hon. Members have doubts about the Concorde. I am not one of them. But having served on the Committee which considered the Concorde Aircraft Bill, I can understand why people have doubts about projects of this kind. It is understandable that the absence of any monitoring device, especially in the early stages of these major projects, can result in a great deal of heartache later.

The Channel Tunnel has had 150 years of study. Therefore its only comparison with Maplin is one of opposites in terms of the speed and thought which have gone into the projects.

If my right hon. and learned Friend is so confident that all that he proposes in the Bill is correct and that there will be no developments in the next 10 years to reverse any of the assumptions in the decisions that he has taken, then by accepting the clause he will have a permanent opportunity to prove that he was right. If that turns out to be so, he will never need to invoke the powers that the clause gives him.

I might say, by way of explanation, that the proposal put forward in the clause has been prompted by a study of the experience of the Canadian Federal Government, who at the moment are going through a similar exercise for the location of a major new airport for Toronto at a place called Pickering. On 30th January of this year the Federal Transport Minister, Mr. Marchand, explained the reasons for choosing the site at Pickering and why he felt it right to build into the proposals a monitoring device not dissimilar to that which we are proposing today. In the course of his remarks, Mr. Marchand said: The Government has gone as far as It could into the technologically-forseeable future. … However an independent board will be set up to hear views on the airport and the urban area around it. … If it produces any vitally new facts on technology, or changes in the attitude of the people that may point to a different conclusion, the Government could be moved to reconsider. It is fair to point out that Mr. Marchand went on to say that he thought this unlikely and that he had no doubt that the Canadian Federal Government would be proved right. That may be so. If my right hon. and learned Friend is as confident as he appears, he could accept the clause with equanimity.

4.30 p.m.

I turn now to the point touched on by the hon. Member for Widnes—namely, whether quiet and short-runway aircraft are a myth.

The Toronto Globe and Mail of 18th March 1973 states: The most important question in the controversy over the new Toronto airport in Pickering Township has been completely overlooked. No one has asked—in public at least—why build an airport with long runways when revolutionary new aircraft for short runways are just around the corner? When the project is finished, will there he any need of a conventional commercial flying field with long runways, a field that takes up an unconscionable amount of valuable space? The implications of the development of short take-off and landing (STOL) planes and especially of quiet short take-off and landing (QSTOL) aircraft do not seem to have been taken into account. This is even more surprising since Canada has done pioneering work in this field and perhaps still has a lead in it, though this is becoming more doubtful by the day. We in this country are, with the Swedes, the Germans and the Spanish, researching a new aircraft called the Europlane. I commend to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State a close study of the noise levels of the Europlane. By the time this aircraft would be in service it would be able to restrict more or less to the area of the airport itself the frightful noise which many people around Heathrow and Gatwick have to suffer.

In passing, I should like to assure those of my hon. Friends who will speak against my new clause that none of us is in any way seeking to dilute the misery and hardship caused by noisy aircraft now and in previous years.

The new clause raises the issue whether there have been any significant developments since Roskill. I should like to point out, in defence of my new clause, that in 1968 the largest civil aircraft in service, the DC8–63, carried 259 passengers and required a runway length of 11,500 ft. By 1972 the Boeing 747 Series 100 was in service. That aircraft carried 490 passengers and required a runway length of 9,400 ft. Since Roskill there has been an enormous change in the runway lengths required.

Even more important, there have been enormous changes in noise levels. I should like to refer to a Department of the Environment document, "Maplin Airport", which was published in April 1972. I do not think one could ask for a more impeccable source of information. In paragraph 10, entitled "Noisiness of Aircraft", it states: The greater volume of traffic now forecast for Maplin is however offset in terms of noise by revised forecasts of the noisiness of aircraft in the future. This is one of the most important changes since the Roskill Report. There is now firm evidence of substantial progress in the quietening of aircraft engines. When the Roskill Commission were sitting the best estimate they could make was that by 1985 new types of aircraft would be 10 PNdB quieter than current (1970) aircraft of the same weight—that is to say, half as noisy. But already in 1972 major new types of aircraft (the Douglas DC10 and Lockheed 1011) have emerged and are flying with recorded noise levels well below this. And this is a continuing process. Paragraph 11 begins with the sentence: The effect is to produce far more favourable forecasts of quieter aircraft than assumed by the Roskill Commission. Figure 1 shows the present forecasts of aircraft noise reduction". The simple fact is that Roskill said that between 1970 and 1995 there would be a noise reduction of X. Within two years, not 25 years. Roskill's estimate of the noise reduction had been more than achieved.

Those of us who have studied this problem now know that the people who live around airports rightly will not tolerate noise. The airlines have got the message. They have told their suppliers, the aircraft manufacturers, that they must build quiet aircraft. This is going on now. There is nothing particularly difficult about building quiet aircraft. It may be expensive, but the expense involved in building quiet aircraft—

Mr. Ronald Bell

My hon. Friend made the astonishing statement that noise levels had been halved within two years. Is he seriously suggesting that the noise around Heathrow has fallen by half in the last two years? Surely all that he means is that a type of aeroplane has been developed which has halved the noise level. The whole purpose of the Roskill extrapolation and of others is the time that it takes for new types to supersede existing types. My hon. Friend seems to have ignored that fact, so it can be dismissed from consideration.

Mr. Adley

I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend, with his legal training, will not want to deceive anybody by suggesting that I said something that I did not say. I read from a Department of the Environment publication which pointed out that already in service are two new aircraft which have reduced the noise level substantially more than Roskill thought could be done in 25 years. By the time that Maplin could be open the numbers of Douglas DC10s and Lockheed 1011s and other even quieter aircraft will be much greater than today. The document is to be believed or it is not. I was not seeking to do anything other than to make a direct quotation.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

I want to be sure that I heard my hon. Friend correctly. Did he say that there was nothing particularly difficult about developing a quiet aircraft?

Mr. Adley

Yes. I said that there is nothing technologically difficult.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

The advice that have been given is that, although engine noise may be quietened and may come very quickly, there is apparently a level below which noise cannot be reduced because there is a large piece of metal weighing several hundred tons being pushed through the air at several hundred miles an hour. Will my hon. Friend explain how the noise from that is reduced?

Mr. Adley

If my hon. Friend believes that, perhaps he will tell the House what aeroplanes will continue to use Heathrow and Gatwick, because he is leaving them open, not closing them, when Foulness is built.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Bradford, West)

I think that the House might be interested to know that by 1985 at least 70 per cent. of movements into the London airports will be of wide-bodied airliners and Jumbos and 91 per cent. of passengers will be carried in those aircraft This is the dimension of the change which is taking place through existing, let alone future, technical developments such as the aircraft mentioned by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Adley

I am greatly indebted to my hon. Friend, who is extremely knowledgeable in these matters. I am aware that he has more knowledge of the subject, with his aeronautical background, than I have.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has referred to noisy gliders which will be flying around with engines turned off! I am trying to show that aircraft are getting quieter. Of course, a large aircraft flying through the air will make a noise, but if his document is to be believed there has been a substantial change in technological development since Roskill. The new clause seeks to ensure that if there are any further changes, which may confound even my hon. Friend, we would have taken powers to deal with them.

Mr. Norman Tebbit (Epping)

Before my hon. Friend leaves that point, because we do not wish to labour it and have the Under-Secretary misunderstanding it, may I assure the House that aeroplanes do not fly at several hundred miles an hour whilst coming into land, however large they are? Let us be quite clear that technically not only is it very much easier to quieten aircraft to the limits of less than 90 decibels outside the airport area, but that the work is being done. We shall undoubtedly achieve it. However, no one is doing that sort of work on the vehicles that will be used to transport passengers to this airfield through East London. My hon. Friend has not yet agreed to publish the noise contours for either side of his motorways and railways.

Mr. Adley

I am grateful to my hon Friend for his intervention. I will not pursue that point. However, I hope that he will do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if he catches your eye.

I was not blessed with a very elaborate education, but I learned Greek and logic. I say I learned logic. I may not have learned it, but I was taught it. If we are building an airport 55 miles away on the Essex marshes, in order to spare people noise, and we are maintaining two other major airports in service at Gatwick and Heathrow, what sort of aeroplanes will continue to use those airports?

If my hon. Friend says that they will continue to be noisy aircraft, then the people who live around Gatwick and Heathrow will continue to be pestered by noise. Perhaps he could explain just what sort of aircraft he thinks will be using those airports. If, however, he says that they will be quiet aircraft, that is fine. Then we need not build Maplin in the first place.

I fully appreciate the point made by the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) and the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins). We know that they are living in misery, albeit slightly less misery than a year ago. But nothing could be worse than to convince these people that by building an airport on the Essex marshes we shall spare them all noise, when in 10 years they will find that we have not done so.

Mr. James Allason (Hemel Hempstead)

Would my hon. Friend recall the situation of Luton, which is creating worse noise than even Heathrow or Gatwick by night? The intention there is that it will be closed down for international flights when Maplin opens. Therefore, in that case, there will be a considerable difference. He should not neglect that argument.

Mr. Adley

I do not, of course, neglect Luton. I recognise the great concern that my hon. Friend has always shown about Luton. But surely at least 90 to 95 per cent. of the people suffering noise in the London area are those who live around Heathrow and Gatwick. That is what the debate is all about when we consider Maplin. I would ask my hon. Friend to accept the serious point that it would be very unkind, to put it at its mildest, for people to be led to think that, if the Bill were passed unamended and the airport built, they should suddenly be in a quiet and peaceful situation.

I have been reading a recently published book called "Cublington: A Blueprint for Resistance". This confirms, in a number of quotations that I have marked but with which I will not weary the House, the way in which the original decision was taken. It was taken simultaneously with the decision not to build a second runway at Gatwick, which would have cost £7 million. I do not know what the latest figures are for the cost of Foulness. I should not call it "Foulness", perhaps; the PR exercise calls it "Maplin". We have heard an estimate of £1,000 million. Suppose that it is £800 million at 1972 prices. What estimate has my hon. Friend made of the price of this airport, with all the infrastructure and with inflation built in over 10 years, plus the likely cost overrun in 1984—if that is not an unfortunate date to choose—at 1984 prices?

I hold no brief for the airlines, but if we are to build this huge airport with public money, it is the Government's responsibility to find out whether there will be any customers for it. Before the British Steel Corporation starts to build a new steel mill, I imagine that it does some research to discover whether it will sell any steel. It is my clear impression that very few of the world's international airlines have expressed any interest in Foulness.

My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, in an answer on 7th February 1973 was quite frank. He said: No airline expressed a preference for Foulness."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February 1973; Vol. 850, c. 126.] I presume that my hon. Friend is aware that the Government do not possess powers to direct traffic to particular airports. There is no way at the moment in which the British Government can tell Pan-American to go to Foulness.

In 15 years of the operation of Gatwick, not one major international carrier has transferred its base from Heathrow. When the Turkish airline THY two years ago decided to start a service from Turkey to London, it wanted to use Heathrow. The Airports Authority told it to use Gatwick, it said that it would not, the British Government, through their agencies, insisted, the Turkish government retaliated—BEA was barred from landing anywhere in Turkey and one had to get off BEA aircraft in Athens—and very soon the British Government were forced to back down and THY went to Heathrow.

4.45 p.m.

So if we pass the Bill unamended, Maplin goes ahead and the Government find that they have an airport which the airlines are not using, they will have to take new and wide-ranging powers, which will have considerable international implications. It is not difficult to build an airport, given £1,000 million, but we must, if we are trying to look after the taxpayers' interests, ask what customers there will be for this airport. Most of us would find it intolerable if we were to build a huge and expensive airport simply for use by charter services.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson (Walthamstow, East)

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Japanese are building a second airport in Tokyo which will be 55 miles outside Tokyo, that they will face exactly the same problem, and that they are willing to force the airlines to use it?

Mr. Adley

I sympathise with the Japanese in their problems. They, I believe, have only one international airport. We already have two in London. There is a substantial difference, which we can see in Paris, for instance, where the French Government intend to close Le Bourget when Roissy is complete. We seem to be thinking that we can keep three airports going indefinitely.

I would again ask the Minister why he will not make a commitment to close Heathrow, and possibly Gatwick as well, in due course when Maplin, if it is built, is completed as a four-runway airport. I would find this acceptable. If we were ruthlessly determined to make noise abatement our main factor in this decision, we should consider building at Foulness and closing Heathrow. Then we could sell the land for housing and some industrial development and more than raise the money to build the new airport.

It concerns me that, at the moment, when we are committing this huge sum of money to the South-East of England, we in the South-West are being starved of any funds at all for the development of our airports. Bristol has been refused any loan sanction or assistance for the development of Lulsgate Airport. Even Exeter Airport, which was recently acquired by the Devon County Council and the Torbay and Exeter County Boroughs, has been refused £25,000.

I could go on at considerable length, but it might be unwise—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris)

It might also very easily be out of order.

Mr. Adley

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

We should deal with this problem at source by eliminating the noise and not simply by moving it miles away. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) has mentioned the oil shortage. Again the new clause is concerned with post-Roskill developments. On 22nd March, the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Working, told me: As no marked increase in oil prices was anticipated at the time of the Roskill Commission, no special account was taken of this factor in preparing traffic forecasts,"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd March, 1973; Vol. 853, c. 187.]

Mr. Peter Rost (Derbyshire, South-East)

In fact, I merely mentioned that, by 1995, the fuel and energy crisis might be becoming serious enough to be an influential factor in the siting of an airport.

Mr. Adley

I entirely agree.

The Department of the Environment has rightly recognised that the motor car cannot for ever be allowed to go on an uncontrolled spree and that we cannot go on building more and more urban motorways and roads simply because more and more people want to drive their motor cars to certain places. We might have reached the time when notwithstanding the fact that Roskill was asked to look for a site to cope with the growth of traffic requiring immediate access to London, we shall have to take powers, not, as the Minister perhaps intends, to direct airlines to Foulness, but to stop people flying in aircraft or to stop aircraft carrying out too many short haul journeys. I believe that 59 per cent. of the flights from Heathrow are to destinations less than 500 miles away. The Channel Tunnel is another development which was not sufficiently considered by Roskill and which will make a substantial difference to the traffic pattern in the years ahead.

I do not know how a back-bench Member is supposed to make up his mind on an issue of this sort. One considers a great deal of documentation and evidence and in the end one has to use one's judgment. I am not sufficiently confident to say that I know that nothing will change in the next 10 or 15 years, and new Clause 2 has been tabled to take all possible changes into account. The last thing I want to see is our now taking an irreversible step and finding in 10 years that we have done something which has had side effects the like of which we cannot now comprehend. In 1962 we had a shortage of hospital staff and we thought it a good idea to bring into the country large numbers from the Commonwealth in order to staff our hospitals. There are some who would say that this decision, taken at a time of apparent great need, has had repercussions which no one could have foreseen at that time.

I therefore ask my hon. Friend to give serious consideration to this modest clause which simply seeks to give him an opportunity, with the Civil Aviation Authority and the Maplin Development Authority, to change his plans should technical developments come about which we cannot at this time quite foresee.

Mr. Douglas Jay (Battersea, North)

I hope that the House will emphatically accept the new clause. I believe that since Second Reading this project has been shown by the CAA report to be entirely unnecessary and on no conceivable argument worth the grotesque sums which the Government propose to spend. The Maplin project began as a blunder, continued for some time as a sacred cow, and seems now to be in danger of becoming a scandal if we are going to spend money on this scale.

When the third London airport was first proposed in the 'sixties, the case was wholly based on the need for extra runway capacity. In 1966–67, professional opinion believed that new runway capacity would be needed by 1974 or 1975. One can now see what was not then as easy to see, that expert opinion, as so often, protected itself by consistently overestimating the speed at which we should need new runway capacity.

The CAA report seems to make this perfectly clear. It puts back to the late 1980s the need for substantial extra runway capacity over and above that which we already have, and shows to any impartial person that Maplin cannot possibly be justified on the grounds on which it has always been advocated until a few months ago, when the Government found the arguments untenable and changed their ground.

The Minister for Aerospace seems to me to have seriously misled the House on Second Reading when he quoted the CAA chairman as saying … that additional airport capacity will be needed in the London area probably by soon after 1980, with a subsequent need for more than one runway some five years after that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th February 1973; Vol. 850, c. 783.] What he did not tell the House was that that additional capacity was based on the assumption that Southend and Stansted were closed, that Luton was seriously restricted and that no second runway was built at Gatwick. The CAA report shows that even in 1985, even if we close Southend and Stansted, restrict Luton and cancel the second runway at Gatwick, then Heathrow and Gatwick together—at any rate on the segregated mode basis—could nearly cope with the expected traffic; and it also shows that the one runway at Maplin would be only marginally needed. Even so that report significantly says, … Maplin's single runway adds relatively little to the annual capacity of the system, because of the expected 'peakiness' of Maplin's traffic, much of which is taken over from Luton, Stansted and Southend. That means that the existing airports, together with one more runway at Gatwick, could easily provide enough runway capacity even in 1985, and even if the estimates do not turn out yet again to be too pessimistic.

Mr. Jessel

I understand the right hon. Gentleman to imply that he believes that Heathrow and Gatwick should be fully used up to their capacity technically regardless of the amount of suffering that might cause to numbers of people living around the airports.

Mr. Jay

I shall come to that point, but I believe that the hon. Member misunderstands the facts if he thinks that it need involve the suffering of which he speaks. The Government in effect propose to spend £800 million or £1,000 million on transferring traffic from Southend, Luton and Stansted to Maplin; and that means that we shall be spending £800 million or £1,000 million for what we could get for £15 million or £20 million at Gatwick.

Faced with these undeniable facts and figures, the Government now change their ground entirely and devise two new arguments. First, we are told that it is not runway capacity that causes the bottleneck but passenger handling capacity. But the extra passenger handling capacity could he provided at Gatwick and Heathrow for a mere fraction of the £1,000 million now proposed. Gatwick has the rail capacity already, largely unused, and in any case the M23 will be built. Will the Minister today give his estimate of the cost of one extra runway at Gatwick, with the extra passenger handling capacity which would be needed there and at Heathrow? We should at least know the figure, even roughly. If the Minister cannot give us a figure he hopelessly undermines his case.

Secondly, we are now told that this has nothing to do with either cost or runway capacity at all—and here I come to the point put by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel)—and that the whole purpose is environmental, to use that blessed word, which presumably means less noise nuisance for fewer people.

But the idea that Maplin will do this is a pure delusion when we take all the consequences into account. It is accepted only by those who have not grasped that relief from noise in the 'eighties will come from quieter aircraft engines and not from moving airports about, and who have not realised that placing an airport on the east coast does not materially diminish noise nuisance, because the takeoff run must normally be in a westerly or south-westerly direction and therefore over the coast and not over the open sea. The population of the Southend area, as we were reminded in an earlier debate, is nearer 300,000—not to mention the population of the Medway towns—

Sir Bernard Braine (Essex, South-East)

And South-East Essex.

Mr. Jay

Yes.

And, of course, the Maplin project proposes in addition to introduce a new city into East Essex of I do not know how many hundreds of thousands of people, in addition to Basildon and not very far from the airport. First we move the airport from the city at a cost of £800 million or £1,000 million and then we build another city not far from the airport at a cost of many hundreds of millions of pounds more.

In addition to all this, whereas the traffic facilities at Gatwick already exist, Maplin would involve the forcing of at least one new six-lane or it might be an eight-lane motorway right through thickly populated Essex and presumably into North-East London. If it is not to be forced into North-East London, what will happen to the traffic when it reaches the area of the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit)? Will the Minister also tell us what his plans are for roads and rail links between London and Maplin, why they have not been published up to now, and what he estimates they will cost? It is quite intolerable that the House should not have that information when we are being asked to give the Bill a Third Reading.

We can, as I say, confidently expect relief from noise nuisance through the rapid development of quieter engines, which, I may say, I did my best to encourage when I had some responsibility in these matters six or so years ago.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has referred to his responsibilities when he had charge of these matters. A few moments ago he spoke of the changing of ground. I remind him and the House that, as President of the Board of Trade, he said at that time: The Government have … carried out a very thorough re-examination, and are satisfied … that a third airport for London will unquestionably be required in the mid-1970s."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th May 1967; Vol. 746, c. 1867.] He went on to say that this was necessary with the full development of Heathrow and the building of a second runway at Gatwick. The only question about what he called this inevitable third London airport was when it would be required, and he concluded that it would be needed by 1974.

Mr. Jay

If the Minister had listened to me just now, he would have discovered that I have learned something from history, even though he has not.

Mr. F. A. Burden (Gillingham)

When the right hon. Gentleman was Minister, he must surely have known about the advance of jumbo jets and the movement then towards quieter aircraft. These things have not happened overnight.

Mr. Jay

Of course we knew something, but we know a great deal more now, as the hon. Gentleman will realise if he will take the trouble to study the reports to which I have referred. We know that significant results can be obtained from quieter aircraft engines. The Department of the Environment's Report for 1972 has shown that noise per aircraft is likely to be nearly halved by 1980, a far greater relief to Heathrow and Gatwick than can possibly come from any transfer of traffic. Indeed, if we devoted only one-twentieth of £1,000 million to quicker research and development on quieter engines, we should do far more to protect the people who are suffering around Gatwick and Heathrow than we should by building this third airport in Essex.

My constituency is on the Heathrow landing flight path, and it adjoins that of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins). I would say to other hon. Members representing West London or South-West London constituencies that they will achieve far more relief for their constituents by pressing for quieter aircraft engines quickly than by advocating this monstrous waste of public money at Maplin.

The Department's Report for 1972 tells us in paragraph 10 that There is now … substantial progress in the quietening of aircraft engines. The sub-commit tee on Maplin of the Noise Advisory Council has made the same point. Mr. Flowerdew, of the Roskill Commission—we have had that report since 1971—and Mr. Alan Day have both forcibly argued the same case, and I believe that expert opinion now overwhelmingly supports their view.

The plain fact is that the Government are obstinately proposing to spend these vast sums when no case on runway capacity exists—that is no longer in dispute—when greater relief from noise could certainly be achieved by smaller expenditure in other ways, including the abandonment of the Essex motorway, and when it is certain that, if we proceed with this plan, we shall have at Maplin a highly inconvenient and unpopular airport which the airlines will not want to use.

On top of all that—this further point should be made—Maplin will create a huge new industrial complex and a growing city in East Anglia, which has already been the most overdeveloped region of the country since the war. Such an industrial magnet is bound to be another severe blow to development areas in the north and west of this island. Quite apart from its other follies, it would, I believe, represent the worst piece of regional planning since 1945.

It is extraordinary that the Minister should ask us to reject the new clause and approve the Bill before he is willing to tell us what would be the cost of one extra runway at Gatwick and the extra passenger handling facilities needed there and at Heathrow, or what are the proposed road and rail links between Maplin and London. We ought to be told that today, and I suggest that, if he does not tell us, the Minister will entirely undermine his own case.

I trust, therefore, that the House will do what each one of us, I believe, knows to be right—assert its authority in this matter, accept the new clause, and reject the project altogether.

Sir Bernard Braine

It must be clear by now to all who have followed the debates that this Bill is remarkable not for what it contains but for what it leaves out. The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) said that the purpose of his new clause is to ask the House to look again at the Maplin project before it leapt. I agree, though perhaps for different reasons.

The people of my constituency—let it not be forgotten that, for good or ill, they will be affected more profoundly than the people of any other constituency in the land if Maplin is developed—are being asked to take far too many matters on trust. For example, we are being asked to approve the Bill before we know where the access routes will run or what will be their cost. We are being asked to approve the Bill before we know the results of essential studies of the effects of reclamation work on tidal and surge behaviour in the rivers and on flood control. We are being asked to approve the Bill before anyone has a clear idea of what the noise impact will be upon the people of Essex and Kent.

Rarely before have so many hostages to fortune been found within the compass of a single Bill.

At this juncture we are considering matters affecting the environment at the eastern end of my constituency. I hope the House will permit me to digress for a moment and remind it of the way in which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has recently discharged his duty to protect the environment at the western end of my constituency, where, in the teeth of opposition from the elected local authorities, from the Member of Parliament and from his own inspector, oil refineries are being put down next door to a growing residential area.

Such contempt already shown for the environmental interests of my constituents, such total disregard for good planning principles, leads me to say on behalf of my constituents and the local authorities that verbal assurances in regard to Maplin are totally unacceptable to us and the necessary safeguards must be written into the Bill. Hence my Amendment No. 3.

I do not see how the Government can object to my amendment, for they have argued repeatedly that the case for Maplin is that it will provide—I quote my hon. Friend's own words—the only civilised solution to the problems of intolerable aircraft noise at the existing London airports. In other words, it is proposed to build Maplin in order to improve the environment of those who have suffered discomfort for far too long around the existing airports.

I understand that purpose and sympathise with it. To reduce discomfort for others is a laudable aim. But one inference from this is that the nuisance at existing airports will increase, not diminish. That is to beg very many questions, not least of which is: what improvements can we expect from quieter engines, and, if there are improvements, what is the justification for the huge expenditure on Maplin? Another inference assiduously cultivated by the Government is that by using the NNI yardstick to gauge noise nuisance and by transferring that noise to Maplin, then because the runways there are to be on land reclaimed from the sea vastly fewer people will be affected by it. But this is a faulty method of judging the scale and intensity of nuisance, as was clearly shown in the evidence given to the Select Committee. Incidentally, may I take this opportunity of paying a warm tribute to the Select Committee for the most painstaking and careful examination it made of the Bill?

It is a faulty method because the level of noise intrusion differs according to the density of urban development and the absence of other noise. A 35 NNI level that is considered a low nuisance rating at Heathrow does not necessarily warrant a low rating at Maplin. At Maplin a 25 NNI rating would be more realistic because of the absence of other noise. If that is so, it means that many more people living in a substantial part of my constituency, in the neighbouring constituency of Southend East and in North Kent, are likely to be affected by noise than the Department of Environment likes to admit. We estimate that the number will be between 65,000 and 125,000. That is a lot of people to annoy for an airport that is going to be built on reclaimed land so that no one should be worried by the noise, as claimed by the Department.

There are other uncertainties. We still do not know whether it is better, as has been thought in the past, to concentrate as much traffic as possible in a limited corridor or to spread it over more routes. Research on this is still proceeding. Nor do we know whether flight paths to and from Maplin and the stacking areas will require some rearrangement of international air space over the Channel. This is a delicate matter. The House cannot be told about it because it obviously involves international negotiation. At the moment all the talk is of stacking over the sea. But what if for some reason, after the House has passed the Bill, in the years ahead, it becomes necessary to have a stacking area over the land? What then of the environment safeguards for the people of Essex and Kent? What price then the environmental argument to go for Maplin as opposed to Cublington? Then again we know that the Government promised to consult local interests about where the runways would be sited. They presented us with four choices and rejected out of hand the one furthest to the north-east which would have caused least noise nuisance to Essex and Kent. So much for local consultation and local opinion. Indeed, in environmental matters in South-East Essex there is a wide gap between the Government's promise and their performance.

Thus there is every justification for my constituents' fear that unless some genuine safeguards are written into the Bill our environment will worsen even where that is not intended, because the implications have not been studied carefully enough in advance. My amendment will put a clear duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that the various powers that he and his colleagues use under other statutes to determine flight paths, the siting of the runways, the altitude of aircraft and where stacking is to take place are used in such a way as to cause no noise nuisance to residents of Essex and Kent. Nothing short of a guarantee of that nature will satisfy us.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Dick Taverne (Lincoln)

I wish to speak in support of both the clauses under discussion. They each call for a review of the technological developments particularly on quieter aero engines. I have had no previous opportunity to speak on this matter, since when the Second Reading took place I was not in the House. I wish to make a brief speech and add only one short and, perhaps, comparatively minor point. Part of the review which I would suggest to the Government that they should undertake should be a study of the possible effect on accelerated development of quieter engines of having differential landing charges.

Everyone agrees on the need for quieter engines. They are being developed; but it seems they are more expensive to run than the noisier ones. Certainly it would be costly to go for earlier refits of existing engines. If that were not so, the problem might be resolved earlier. There is one element in airline costs which is entirely within the Government's control, and that is landing charges. They are already differentiated to discourage peak-time landing and the differential could also be applied to discourage noisy landings. That could be done in a way which was economically neutral with an increase in the charges on noisier landings offset by decreases in the charges of quieter operation. But even if there were no increase in the charges, the social cost would be very much less.

Dr. Alan Glyn (Windsor)

Would not the hon. and learned Member agree that the effect of having these higher landing charges might be that aeroplanes would terminate their flights at Paris and other Continental terminals and not come to this country?

Mr. Taverne

If there were lower charges for the quiter engines the total effect might be environmentally most beneficial and that is something the Government should consider as part of their review. The level of the differential could be such as to influence the reordering policy of the airlines and to make refits of existing engines an economic proposition when discounted over the remaining lifetime expectancy. That would undoubtedly be a considerable extra inducement to quieter engines. The technology exists. Refit kits for most types of engine are available and where they were not available it would stimulate their development.

I want to refer briefly to the cost involved and remind hon. Members of the Fifth Report of the Expenditure Committee on the last White Paper on Public Expenditure. This is the report published on 15th February. Paragraph 9 says: As a result of deliberate policy decisions"— which were taken some months ago— expenditure in 1973–74 has been raised by about £1,200 million at 1972 prices (about 4 per cent. in real terms)". There have since been some adjustments, but the level is still very much higher than originally envisaged and it does not basically detract from the conclusion reached by the specialist adviser to that Sub-Commitee that even if the economy expands at a rate of 5 per cent. per annum between now and 1974 the rate of growth of personal consumption will have to slow down .. to about 2½ per cent. per annum"— from the present rate of nearly 7 per cent. The public expenditure constraint with which the present Government or any Government would be faced would be very serious. In view of the arguments which have been advanced in the debate, it is quite clear that the Government's case for allowing this extra expenditure to go forward has not been made out.

Mr. Wilkinson

I was unable to take part in the Second Reading debate, so I am glad that I have caught your eye so early in this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

We have reached a late stage in the Bill. Although the clause has been supported in various ways, the intention is the same on both sides, and the clause has great merit. It states in effect that we should reconsider, taking advantage of the opportunity provided by the statutory body which we have recently created—the Civil Aviation Authority—to examine these complicated matters in detail from a national perspective. That has never been done.

It is quite clear that the entire Maplin project is an entirely political creature which arose, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley) and other hon. Members have said, from pressurising and public relations resources deployed by the stockbroker belt of Buckinghamshire. It is clear that, in this as in so many other matters, money speaks.

From a purely aviation development the project has, as many hon. Members have reminded the House, progressed—if that is the word—to a far more grandiose venture. It appears to me that Essex County Council and the Port of London Authority have together hatched a new concept which has proved attractive to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench, who are desperately looking for reasons to justify an earlier decision which was politically arrived at and which is no longer technically justifiable. The Maplin project is not just an airport", my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary wrote in "London's Flight East". It is the rapid, planned development of an entire sub-region, undertaken with the specific intention of improving the quality of life"— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] presumably for those people who will be removed from their homes for railway and motorway construction, for the cockle fishers and wildfowlers of Foulness Flats, and for the bird-lovers who go there understanding that it is one of the few real bits of wilderness left.

My hon. Friend continued: improving the quality of life for those who live in the area as well as meeting the national need for better air and seaport facilities. Maplin is therefore a many-sided project. I question the claim that the project will mean better seaport facilities. I dread the thought of 500,000-ton oil tankers chuntering up the Channel. It would not be right on environmental grounds. Many accidents befall shipping in the Channel, and the prospect of an accident involving an oil tanker in those narrow waters is horrifying. Therefore, the claim that there would be better seaport facilities is not justifiable. If we wish to have a tanker complex and a container port, it should be developed somewhere on the West Coast, presumably in a development area.

The whole project is a political child. As I have told my right hon. Friend who is now Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, enthusiasm for the Maplin project varies inversely with knowledge of aviation. The more one knows about aeroplanes, the less one likes the project. This has been well demonstrated by the fact that not a single airline wants to use Maplin. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nor does a single person."]

I may be old-fashioned, but I have always thought that the air transport business was for the sake of the passengers and for the sake of maximising the profit of the airline operators. If passengers have a choice, they will always, other things being equal, go to the nearer rather than the further airport. The airline operators, other things being equal, wish to operate where they have existing plant and facilities as well as workpeople living nearby, where they have established operations.

They do not want to take ship—if that is the right phrase—to a place east of London to carry out those operations which they have been doing perfectly well in their existing location.

I am gravely apprehensive about the project. My apprehensions were heightened when I returned from a Select Committee visit to the sub-continent to learn of the speech of my hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping in the Second Reading debate. He seriously misquoted a letter from the Chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority. It is often the case in life that the sins of omission are more grave than the sins of commission. My hon. Friend quoted the part in which the chairman said: It is … our view from the material at present available to us that additional airport capacity will be needed in the London area probably by or soon after 1980, with a subsequent need for more than one runway some five years thereafter. But then came the crunch. The whole tenor, the whole point, of the letter from the aviation point of view—the Civil Aviation Authority has no mandate to make political judgments but is entrusted with technical aviation judgments—was that the chairman went on to say: From the aviation point of view this additional capacity could with advantage be found by increased use and development of the existing London Airports. It is for the Government to decide whether other considerations"— such as the representations from the Port of London Authority, the Essex County Council or the stockbrokers of Buckinghamshire— such as noise offset the disadvantages to aviation and the additional cost of providing this capacity at a new airport. In making this judgment, Ministers will no doubt take account of possible development of quieter aircraft. That was a hopeful suggestion if ever there was one.

The Chairman went on to state: Our assessment takes acount of the recent development and the likely growth in the use of wide bodied jets and the effect this has on aircraft movement rates. Regional airport developments, necessary though they may be for the areas which they will serve, will not so materially affect the growth of traffic needing to be catered for in the London area as significantly to modify the view I have expressed. The view lie has expressed is that from the aviation standpoint the additional capacity could with advantage be found by increased use and development of the existing London airports.

Mr. Carol Mather (Esher)

Is my lion. Friend aware that many of those who live in constituencies that he refers to rather unkindly as being in the stockbroker belt work in London? We represent our constituents. Is he aware that noise in those areas has already reached an intolerable level? That was the trouble we had last summer when we made all the representations to the Minister.

Mr. Wilkinson

I am well aware of what my hon. Friend says. That is why I have been such a strong advocate of the use of Government funding, particularly on the scale the Government seem prepared to undertake for other schemes for the quietening of engines and for such technical developments in aviation as will have a universal benefit. If we merely move air transport facilities from one London airport to another, this cannot have the same universal benefit for stockbrokers in Buckinghamshire, wool-men in Yorkshire or Irishmen in Dublin.

Mr. Burden

rose—

Mr. Wilkinson

I will not give way.

The whole point is that with technical development we can maximise export opportunities for the aircraft industry and heighten employment opportunities in other advanced technologies as well as the aerospace industry throughout the country. Incidentally, we would not upset the Government's regional development strategy as gravely as we appear to be doing by increasing development in the most congested region at the very time when we are spending more money than ever on rightly trying to develop the industrial regions of the North and other places where such development is vital.

As we have expended millions of pounds, in my judgment correctly, on nationalising Rolls-Royce, presumably to keep in production the ultra-quiet, high technology RB211, the decision on Maplin seems particularly strange. It also seems to me that very worthwhile aviation decisions are being inhibited because if they were allowed to go ahead they would diminish the argument for Maplin.

We must consider the Hawker Siddeley 146 feeder airliner and to a much greater extent the Europlane consortium project which the BAC with other European companies is trying to undertake. It is not only to the airframe sector of the industry that consideration must be directed but to other areas also. We must consider the power plant scene. We have a major lead in this country through the development of the Dowty/Rowtol variable pitch fan. That has not been fully exploited for some reason. If we produce quiet airliners that are shown to work, that is another reason for not going ahead with Maplin.

5.30 p.m.

I have always advocated a regional and a technical approach to the problem. The two go hand in hand. The Civil Aviation Authority adduces in its report a number of good arguments from an aviation point of view. For example, there is no congestion at the London airports which makes the building of Maplin necessary. The extension of charter operations will to some extent reduce the number of air transport movements in the London area. First, we already know that 92 per cent. of passengers in the mid-1980s will be carried in ultra-large jumbo-size aeroplanes and that the number of movements will not grow as rapidly as expected.

Secondly, the use of wide-bodied aeroplanes on short-haul routes will increase. Mr. Wheatcroft, of the British Airways Board, was only recently speaking about the need for 800-seaters for BEA. Thirdly, the CAA says that airports outside London will handle a slightly greater proportion of all traffic.

The CAA says that the advanced passenger train will, by the end of the decade, affect domestic transport. It argues that the main expansion of air transport is in charter operations. Between 1966 and 1971 the increase in charter operations was 14 per cent. The increase in scheduled operations was only 6 per cent. Because of the high load factor involved in charter operations and the affinity group nature involved, the operations lend themselves to the use of departure airports much nearer the catchment area of the passengers which are carried.

It is rightly argued "Why should we in the north of England have to travel all the way down to Gatwick or Luton to join our flights?" The CAA says in paragraph 4.6 (i) of its report that there will he no reduced, short or vertical takeoff development of commercial significance by 1985. Later in the report it is said that a new 200-seater airbus could be in service by that date and that that will be taken into account in the calculations which will take place.

It is disingenuous to say that there will be no RTOL development by 1985. It could well be that there will not be such development but it will be a great tragedy for British aviation if that is the case. We will be losing a great opportunity. The technology is there. The Europlane consortium has said that by 1985, if given the go-ahead, it could have well over 200 such airliners—that is about 200 180-seater quiet airliners—in service.

There are only a few more things which must be said. More could be done in the way of mixed mode operations at existing airports. More could be done in the way of computer sequencing and the greater sophistication of air traffic control. That is particularly important if we operate restricted take-off and landing aircraft. Once that is done, air traffic can be spread about on a more rational basis. In other words, quiet and restricted take-off and landing aircraft could be allowed to use Northolt. There is no reason for not building a small runway north of the existing runway at