| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11.39 am
Mr. Robert Ainsworth (Coventry, North-East): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) for securing this debate and for the tireless way in which he has doggedly pursued this issue since the day of the air crash at Coventry. Since that tragic day in Coventry, he has applied pressure in every circumstance that one can imagine: he has met the local authority, Ministers and local residents. I hope that he will continue those efforts until we are rewarded with better regulation in Coventry.
I share an office with my hon. Friend in Coventry, and we were there on the morning of the air crash. People had to be in Coventry--which is a reasonable-sized city--to understand the impact of what happened that morning.My hon. Friend and I were working in the office and we heard sirens outside. We did not know what had gone on--whether there had been a terrorist bomb, whether a gas main had leaked or whether the canal had burst its banks. It was then announced on the radio that there had been an air crash. My hon. Friend immediately went to the crash site. The people of Coventry were in a state of shock, and heaven knows how the people of Willenhall were feeling.
Many people had said that there was an accident waiting to happen at Coventry. The plane that crashed was involved in the export of live animals to the continent, following the ferry companies' ban on that trade and the inability of people to export live animals through the ports. We knew that cowboys would be attracted to that trade--they were cashing in on a short-term profit opportunity to transport live animals out of the country by air.
There is no long-term future in such an operation--everyone knows that, so everyone knows what sort of an operation would fill the gap. Local people were concerned about the safety regulations, the aircraft that were being used and the nature of the company that was running the operation out of Coventry airport. The local authority was in a dilemma because the operator was threatening it with legal action if it did anything to prevent his trade.
Lord Goschen has told my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East that the problem is parliamentary time. Does any hon. Member believe that there is a
problem with parliamentary time? We have heard the Queen's Speech and we know its content--or lack of content. Parliamentary time is not at a premium this year, nor was it last year. It is a smokescreen for anyone to suggest to hon. Members who represent Coventry and Warwickshire that the problem is parliamentary time.
I do not want to bring party politics into this issue, but I ask the Minister whether the problem is not tied up with the paranoia in sections of the Government about regulation of any part of the economy and with improving or increasing the powers and abilities of local authorities to respond to circumstances such as this. If the only excuse that we are being given is lack of parliamentary time, I suspect that there must be another reason why we are not acting to regulate small and medium-sized airports properly. Perhaps we will get a response from the Minister on that issue.
The local authority was in a dilemma. Phoenix Aviation, the operator of this enterprise, was threatening court action if the local authority did anything to restrain its trade. There were demonstrations outside the airport and this operation left an awful lot to be desired in relation to health and safety at work and safety in the air.The company threatened to take the local authority to court if it took action.
Six people died because of Phoenix Aviation's activities in Coventry, including one demonstrator who fell under a lorry at the gates of Coventry airport and five people in the air crash. I have visited the site--I did not go with my hon. Friend on the morning of the crash;it was his constituency, and it was right that he should be involved at that time--and there would have been mass slaughter in Willenhall if that plane had been on a slightly different path. The plane clipped a pylon, turned upside down in the air, clipped the side of a house and then, mercifully, crashed into woodland at the side of the housing estate.
The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth(Mr. Pawsey) asked whether those houses should have been built--they were built in the mid-1950s and the nature of the airport has changed over that time. When the housing estate was built at Willenhall the airport was a Sunday flying school.
Mr. Pawsey:
In the days when much of this development took place, the airfield catered for small, light aircraft. A fundamental change in the role of the airport has occurred over recent years, and that is causing so much worry to those of us who have constituencies around it.
Mr. Ainsworth:
I shall refer briefly to the change in the nature of the airport, the problems that have arisen as a result of that and the council's policies towards it.The airport has been a controversial issue within the local authority for a number of years--some people have been staunch supporters of its continuation and others have been totally opposed to it. A few years ago, we thought that we might be able to close the airport and build a car factory on the site--I do not think I am giving away any secrets--but that deal fell through.
In my view, the local authority sometimes exaggerates the economic importance of the airport. I have talked to local business leaders, most of whom believe that Coventry airport brings very little economic advantage to
the city. The airport is only 10 or 12 miles from Birmingham, and because of the nature of freight these days, there are not a lot of jobs involved with it, although there are people who depend on it for their livelihoods. The local authority should bear it in mind--and review its policies accordingly--that an alternative to the continuation of Coventry airport is other economic development.
I have some difficulties with the local authority's powers over the airport. If we are going to put responsibilities on councils, we need to give them power to take action so that we can hold them accountable.
There is a desperate need for regulation that will prevent such an accident from occurring in the future,or at least minimise its likelihood. The British people know and understand certain aspects of the life that goes on around them.
For example, they understand why new regulations are being introduced to control the number of hours that lorry drivers are allowed to drive. They were amazed by this report when it revealed that in the 1990s people were allowed to fly excessive hours; people were in charge of an aircraft when their command of the English language left a lot to be desired; and people were able to operate an aircraft into and out of an airport when their instrumentation was incompatible with the instrumentation available at the airport.
People in Coventry and throughout the length and breadth of the country find it incredible that such things are allowed to happen. The central demand that arises from this debate must be that the Minister should look with some urgency at the regulations that have allowed this to happen. They must be brought up to date to ensure that the air space around our towns and cities is operated in a modern and safe manner so that we are not imposing a massive danger on people in the future.
Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North):
This has been an important debate. It is a particularly appropriate subject for the longer Adjournment debates that have been introduced in the House. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) on initiating the debate and on the tenacity with which he has pursued the issue over a long period. It must be a source of satisfaction to him to raise the subject on the Floor of the House and to find such consensus on the need for prompt action from the Government. We will listen to the Minister with great interest.
This is a good example of someone saying what he has to say in a relatively brief speech so as to enable others to participate. As a result, we have heard a range of excellent speeches from both sides of the House, displaying a remarkable degree of agreement on the causes of the problem and the need for a Government response. The onus will be on the Minister to provide that response.
The debate has taken place on several tiers. First, there was the immediate tragedy and the clear consensus that it was an accident waiting to happen. There were also the
particular circumstances at Coventry airport. There does not seem to be much disagreement within the House that, for a long time, the arrangements there have left much to be desired.
On that score, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) said that it was a matter for the local authority. Clearly, the local authority has played a prime role as the owner of the airport and has pursued the policies that have been described in order to attract extra business. However, such action creates a potential conflict of interest between ownership and self-regulation. Therefore, it cannot be a matter only for the local authority.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |