Airport Expansion: Economic and Environmental Impact 11.00
am Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab) I beg
to move, That this House has considered the economic and
environmental impacts of airport expansion. It is a pleasure
to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I thank the
Minister...Request free trial
Airport Expansion: Economic and Environmental Impact
11.00 am
-
(Brentford and
Isleworth) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the economic and
environmental impacts of airport expansion.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray.
I thank the Minister for attending. I am bringing this
issue to the House because of the impact that a third
runway will have on significant parts of my
constituency—those areas not already under the approach
path to Heathrow—and because of wider regional and national
concerns about the environmental, fiscal and economic cost
of expanding Heathrow.
It is a year to the day since the Government’s announcement
that the preferred option for an additional runway was
Heathrow. Fortuitously, it is also the day after the
release of the Government’s revised national policy
statement. The Government decision to support expansion at
Heathrow was based on reports produced by the Airports
Commission, but since the publication of those reports in
2015, further analysis has significantly undermined their
conclusions, particularly on the economic and environmental
impacts and costs of Heathrow expansion versus those of
Gatwick expansion. Yesterday’s releases undermine the
conclusion further.
I will outline a few of the key points, the first of which
is reduced net economic benefits. To begin with growth
figures, I see that yesterday’s Government report revised
assumed demand for flying upward, but I wonder if account
was taken of UK economic growth: we have in the past year
lurched from being one of the fastest growing G7 economies
to one of the slowest. Looking at the comparative figures
in the Department for Transport calculations, the new
estimates for net economic benefit arising from a third
runway at Heathrow compared with Gatwick in yesterday’s
figures changed the picture further. A year ago, the net
economic benefit from a third runway at Heathrow was given
as £61 billion over a 60-year period—a negligible net
benefit. Yesterday the Government revised those figures
upward: the figures given for a second runway at Gatwick
are between £74.1 billion and £75.3 billion over 60 years;
but this time the figures for the Heathrow option are lower
than those, at £72.8 billion to £74.2 billion.
-
(Hammersmith)
(Lab)
My hon. Friend is right to highlight yesterday’s figures,
which completely blow the Government’s cover and show that
there is no environmental or economic case for Heathrow
that compares with the case for Gatwick. Does she agree
that what is outrageous is that the figures have been
suppressed while Heathrow’s cause was advanced? Now that we
have the true figures, we should see that the Heathrow
option is a totally inappropriate development for London.
-
Yes, my hon. Friend is right. The election delay and other
excuses meant that figures that could have been in the
public domain have only just come out.
Job creation figures are often used to justify Heathrow
expansion, but those from the Airports Commission report
have recently been revised downward. The total number of
jobs that it is claimed will be created is down from 78,000
to 37,000. It is disappointing; the first draft of the
national policy statement supported the higher figure and I
have not had a chance to read the revisions to see whether
that has changed. Analysis by Transport for London
demonstrates that the 37,000 jobs are not genuinely new
jobs, but merely displaced from other parts of the economy.
That is not insignificant in terms of ensuring continued
employment for thousands of people, but it is completely
different from creating new economic activity. It is not
clear that Heathrow’s promises to local communities about
mitigation, to the regions about connectivity, and to the
country about jobs remain the same, given the reduction in
the figure for total economic benefit.
-
(Keighley) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree with my view, from a north of
England and Yorkshire perspective, that rather than
entrench Heathrow in its dominant position, it would be
better for the balance of the UK economy to consider the
potential of airports such as Birmingham, which will soon
have a high-speed train connection, and Manchester? There
is a lot of potential for spreading things around in the
UK, rather than concentrating them at Heathrow.
-
My hon. Friend is right, and I shall come on to that point:
expanding Heathrow appears to reduce demand and the ability
for regional airport growth, rather than enhance it, as
Heathrow airport keeps saying.
To return to comparisons between Heathrow and Gatwick, the
Department for Transport states that
“taken over the whole 60 year period, the Gatwick scheme
could lead to greater monetised net public value”
when looking only at passenger benefits in terms of reduced
fares, fewer delays and better services. Such conclusions
do not shout to me that Heathrow is the better option for
the country and passengers.
On the cost of surface access, increasing flights by about
47% will of course increase traffic and transport pressure
on an airport whose roads and public transport are
congested most of the time. That in itself is an economic
cost to the local economy and a commercial cost to the
airport and airlines. Improvements to public transport
should shift a higher proportion of the new passengers on
to rail, but many of the improvements, such as southern and
western rail access, which are not even funded yet, are
needed now for the smooth running of a major two-runway
international airport and its hinterland. The imminent
upgrade of the Piccadilly line and the creation of
Crossrail were designed, according to Transport for London,
to support an increased population in west London and
beyond—not a third runway. I have seen no assessment of the
additional pressure on the roads from freight and
flight-servicing vehicles, which cannot, of course,
transfer to rail. I have raised that point in the Chamber
several times, and have not had an answer.
-
(Richmond Park)
(Con)
The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech, which hits
exactly the right note. On the point about public
infrastructure, TfL put the cost at about £18 billion. It
may be less than that, but it is up to £18 billion. The
Government have ruled out paying for any of it. Heathrow
has promised to contribute up to £1 billion, and TfL could
not pay even if it wanted to, because it is not within its
budget. Does the hon. Lady share my hope that the Minister
will address the issue of who will pay for the public
infrastructure improvement?
-
The hon. Gentleman, who represents a constituency
neighbouring mine, is right and has anticipated my point.
The cost of improvements to surface access is disputed,
with estimates ranging from just over £1 billion from
Heathrow airport to £3.5 billion from the Department for
Transport, and £18 billion from Transport for London. Of
course, we have no commitment at all from the Government to
fund anything that Heathrow airport is not prepared to pay
for itself. As Heathrow airport has publicly agreed to
commit only £1 billion, there is significant concern that
the taxpayer would be left picking up the shortfall if the
third runway were to go ahead. Any such contribution from
the public sector would further reduce the available
capital for investment in infrastructure projects outside
London and the south-east, which fellow MPs from the north,
Scotland and the south-west continually raise in
Parliament.
-
(Gordon) (Con)
My constituency has seen the recent expansion of Aberdeen
International airport. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is
essential that far-flung regions should be connected to
London? That is particularly true for Aberdeen, because the
oil and gas industry is essentially linked to London.
-
The hon. Gentleman is right that commercial and leisure
interests mean that passengers want to fly from Scotland to
London, but there are five airports in London; why should
Heathrow be the one that takes additional capacity? Also,
many people in Scotland want to fly direct to their primary
destination and would prefer not to transfer planes in the
south of England.
On the restricted growth of regional airports, the Airports
Commission pointed out that Heathrow expansion would
negatively affect the opportunity for growth at nearly all
regional airports in the UK. Heathrow claims that the third
runway will service 14 domestic routes, yet the commission
suggests that without a regional slot allocation preference
or some sort of subsidy, new domestic routes may not be
commercially viable. Indeed, it predicted that domestic
airport connections to Heathrow would be reduced from the
seven routes today to only four by 2050. The Government
have yet to give any commitment on whether they are
prepared to financially support these regional connections.
Increases in passenger numbers are regularly cited as the
rationale for airport expansion, but interestingly the
number of air traffic movements grew by only 0.6% between
2000 and 2014. Obviously, there are restrictions at
Heathrow in that respect. Let us move on to climate change,
because it is an important issue.
-
(Edinburgh West)
(LD)
As the hon. Lady moves on to climate change, does she agree
that, with Brexit looming and its likely impact on air
travel to and from the continent, there is a case for
re-examining the possible impact on all our airports?
-
As time has moved on, that is essential. The Government
must go back to square one and look at the whole issue of
aviation demand and where supply is provided, rather than
being at the behest of one very large commercial interest
that needs to expand to please its shareholders and pay its
outstanding debts.
If the Government are serious about meeting climate change
targets, restrictions on growth at other airports will be
essential if Heathrow is expanded. The Aviation Environment
Foundation estimates that to remain compatible with the
target of the Climate Change Act 2008 of limiting aviation
emissions to 37.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2050,
36% fewer passengers would have to fly in and out of
airports in the south-west, 11% fewer in Scotland, 14%
fewer in the north-west and 55% fewer in the west midlands.
Noise mitigation is dear to my heart because of the cost of
insulation to make life bearable for people such as my
constituents living under the approach paths, now and in
the future. The low-flying, quieter aircraft that Ministers
often talk about are much more disturbing on the ground
than higher flying, noisier aircraft. When under the
approach path to Heathrow, the only quiet aircraft is a
glider, and we have not yet invented the passenger glider.
Up to 1 million people will be significantly affected by
aviation noise around Heathrow—300,000 more than are
affected now. The noise mitigation package offered by
Heathrow is not available for the majority of people
affected and is lamentably insufficient compared with
international comparators.
Aviation is absent from the clean growth plan. If a third
runway is constructed, by 2050 emissions from aviation will
constitute about 25% of total UK emissions. That will
require significant reductions and restrictions in other
sectors of the economy, including the complete
decarbonisation of the rest of the transport sector. I do
not see the Department for Transport moving very fast to do
that. The Committee on Climate Change said that allowing
aviation emissions to overshoot their target, as would be
inevitable with a new runway, would imply other sectors
making cuts beyond what is feasible.
Finally, regarding the weak clean air plan, the
Government’s releases yesterday confirmed what many of us
had been saying for some time: expanding Heathrow cannot be
done without further breaching air quality limits. The
Government’s clean air plan has been rightly criticised for
seeking to shift responsibility for air quality on to local
authorities. The Government should be taking responsibility
for this. To meet the air pollution limits would require a
significant move away from diesel vehicles on roads
surrounding the airport and no increase in airport-related
traffic. That is not feasible. A third runway will
inevitably increase delays at junctions and slow average
speeds on local road networks—things that are already
problems—and thus increase emissions at the expense of the
health of my constituents and many hundreds of thousands of
other people. It will also have an impact on the local
economy.
I urge the Government to follow the Mayor of London’s lead
in prioritising air quality, and remind the Minister that
the Government’s policy of supporting expansion at Heathrow
totally undermines the effort to make London a more
sustainable city. Yesterday’s figures clearly illustrate
that Gatwick expansion would not hit the air quality
limits.
In conclusion, I ask the Minister to respond to a number of
key questions. What assessment has he made of the impact of
Brexit on future aviation demand? What level of subsidy are
the Government prepared to give to support flights from
regional airports into Heathrow? What is the total
contribution required from the public purse to support
Heathrow expansion?
11.14 am
-
The Minister for Transport Legislation and Maritime (Mr John
Hayes)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr
Gray. The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth
Cadbury) has been assiduous in her defence of her
constituents’ interests. She and my hon. Friend the Member
for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) are beyond question in both
the diligence they have exercised and the passion they have
shown. Nothing worth while is ever achieved without passion,
and no one is more passionate in defending their
constituents’ interests than she and he. On that basis, I
congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. I note
that my hon. Friend has already briefly contributed and is
here to listen to what I have to say.
Let me be clear: the Government have expressed a preference
for airport expansion, on which we are consulting. That is
where we are with this. Final decisions will be made as a
part of that process, but they have not yet been made. I will
certainly consider all the matters raised by the hon. Lady,
which she kindly informed me about previously. She set out
with great courtesy, as she has many times before, the areas
she hoped to cover. I will do my best to try to address them;
time is short, but we will try to cover as much ground as we
can none the less. This is a timely debate, because it was
only yesterday that the Government launched our consultation
on the revised national policy statement and published our
response to our earlier consultation on airspace reform.
If I may, I will deal at the outset with the matter raised by
my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Colin Clark). It is
right that we see this subject in the context of what we
expect of our regional airports. He is right to say that any
consideration about airport expansion needs to be on a
strategic basis; it would be quite wrong to see the expansion
in the south-east in isolation. He can be assured that the
Government think strategically about these things. Part of
our ongoing consideration, and the discussion we are having
on the back of the consultation, will take full account of
the point made by him and others about the need for the
relationship between the regions and the south to be secure.
I mention those publications because they are intrinsic to
the debate. I am sure that the hon. Member for Brentford and
Isleworth has already taken the opportunity to look at the
statement from the Secretary of State for Transport, although
she may not have had a chance to work through the full suite
of documents, as they are extremely detailed. However, it is
inevitable that my response today will repeat much of what
was set out in the statement yesterday; she would hardly
expect me to do anything else.
The important thing about this subject generally is that the
Government are not frightened or nervous about taking big,
strategic decisions about infrastructure. Members might think
that untypical of Governments in democratic polities; over
the last several decades, such Governments have often been
reluctant to take big decisions, partly for fear of binding
the hands of successors and partly because no one wants to be
held responsible for a decision that goes wrong. Governments
need to take big, strategic decisions on infrastructure and
this Government are determined to do so, notwithstanding the
tendency I described—perhaps the inevitable consequence of
living in a democracy where we are all, quite properly,
answerable to the people whom we serve.
The issue is not about taking the decision but about the
process. The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth is right
to draw attention to some of the specifics of that, which I
will now deal with. We announced last October that the
Heathrow north-west runway is our preferred option to deliver
extra capacity in the south-east. I have no intention of
being excessively partisan, but the hon. Lady knows that her
own party’s manifesto made clear the official Opposition’s
preference for airport expansion in the south-east. That
manifesto set down four serious and unsurprising conditions,
many of which she covered in her brief remarks and, indeed,
in her many questions to the Government. We have received a
number of responses to the major consultation that we
launched originally. The draft airports NPS allowed us to
solicit views and opinions, and we have received about 70,000
responses in total. In parallel, Heathrow Airport Holdings
Ltd has been working with airlines to bring down the cost of
the scheme.
We are now consulting on the revised draft NPS for a further
eight weeks. That is in line with our statutory requirements
and is the right thing to do. We expect the Liaison Committee
to announce shortly which Select Committee will take forward
parliamentary scrutiny. The draft NPS has been revised in the
light of the consultation responses already received, to
reflect changes to wider Government policy and updated
evidence, such as the Government’s air quality plan and the
latest aviation passenger demand forecasts.
To respond to what the hon. Member for Brentford and
Isleworth said about Gatwick, I should say that it is really
important to realise that some of the advantages are hard to
monetarise; they are not entirely financial. I shall try to
elaborate on that in a moment. Although of course money
matters, it is not all that matters. There will be strategic
reasons why we will come to the decision we come to when we
have consulted. Further consultation is not unusual. The
Planning Act 2008 requires us to consult again.
Let us be clear about the areas that the hon. Lady addressed.
The first is the broad economic case—the net economic
benefits and demand. The revised passenger demand forecasts,
which the Government published yesterday, show that the need
for additional capacity in the south-east is even greater
than previously thought. They show that all five of London’s
main airports will be completely full by the mid-2030s, so
doing nothing is not an option.
Our revised analysis shows that the new north-west runway at
Heathrow would deliver benefits of up to £74 billion to
passengers and the wider economy over a 60-year period. As I
have said, the monetarised benefits are part of the strategic
approach, and if one looks at the monetarised effects of both
the expansion at Heathrow and the possible expansion at
Gatwick, one sees that they are fairly evenly balanced over
the longer term. Heathrow offers the greatest economic
benefits for at least the first 40 to 50 years. The figures,
which the hon. Lady will be familiar with, show an evening
out of those monetarised benefits in the longer term. She
will know that well.
-
The Minister seems to be rewriting history. At the time the
commission produced its report, we were told that the
economic benefits of Heathrow were much greater than those of
Gatwick. The facts have changed. Surely the Government should
be looking at the revised facts and not just saying, “We’ve
made a decision. We’re going to go on with it whatever
happens.”
-
Mr Hayes
The hon. Gentleman is perhaps not quite in the same league as
the hon. Lady or my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park,
but he is certainly right up there in terms of his interest
in this subject. [Interruption.] I do not mean to be unkind
to him, but I do not want in any sense to underestimate the
contribution made by those two colleagues. The hon. Gentleman
will understand the point that I made earlier: not all the
strategic benefits, the long-term benefits, can be
monetarised—a few moments ago, I said that the two were
broadly the same. But let us talk about some of the
additional strategic benefits, which are pertinent to the
hon. Lady’s initial remarks.
The ability to secure the United Kingdom’s future as an
aviation hub is an important part of expansion, as is our
ability to compete with other European and middle eastern
airports. In 2040, there would be 113,000 additional flights
across the UK airport network, equating to 16 million
additional long-haul seats. That would help UK businesses to
connect to markets across the globe.
I have already mentioned the support for domestic
connectivity to the nations and regions of the UK. The
importance of freight has often been understated in the
debate. Freight is an important part of what Heathrow already
handles; I think that it handles more freight by value than
all other UK airports combined. We are also talking about up
to 114,000 additional jobs in the local area by 2030 and—a
subject dear to my heart—very many, perhaps 5,000, additional
apprenticeships. I was able to visit very recently the team
at Heathrow airport who deal with skills and apprenticeships
and saw the effect that they can have on the prospects of,
the opportunities for, so many people.
I shall deal quickly with other areas that the hon. Lady
would want me to deal with. The Airports Commission estimated
the potential costs of the surface access provision for the
north-west runway at Heathrow at about £5 billion, but
recognised that final details and therefore costs would be
determined as part of the statutory planning process. Let me
be clear: there will be no planning permission unless a very
high bar has been met in environmental terms. It is simply a
matter of fact that planning permission cannot be granted
unless that high bar is crossed, and I certainly, as Minister
of State, would not want it otherwise.
It is right that additional investment will be needed in the
infrastructure around the airport. However, I am not sure
that I would agree with the Mayor. The Mayor has had a fairly
torrid time over the last week. He was criticised in the
Chamber last week, and I think I had a go at him yesterday,
although, as I said, I do not want to be too partisan about
these things. I am not sure that the analysis done by
Transport for London takes full account of the infrastructure
that we are already committed to improving. None the less, it
is right that we have a proper and open debate about the
surface access issue, and we will do so.
I have said a little about the growth of regional airports
and the Government’s support for that. The Government fully
recognise the importance of air services to the nations and
regions of the UK, and the draft airports national policy
statement published yesterday makes it clear that the
expansion of Heathrow will be an opportunity to increase
frequency on existing domestic routes and to develop new
domestic connections.
On the cost of noise mitigation, I have made it clear that
there will be no planning permission unless that is dealt
with satisfactorily. Any expansion at Heathrow will be
accompanied by a world-class compensation and mitigation
package, to mitigate the impact on local communities. That is
the least that the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend should
expect. While I am Minister of State, they can be guaranteed
that that will happen; I know that that is the Secretary of
State’s view, too.
-
Will the Minister guarantee that “world-class” means
equivalent—equivalent noise standards and equivalent
insulation schemes to those at comparable international world
airports that have cities next to them?
-
Mr Hayes
The hon. Lady will know that we have suggested a package of
more than £700 million for noise insulation of homes and £40
million for schools, to be funded by the scheme promoter, but
given the point that she has just made, I am more than happy
to go back and look at best international practice. It is
perfectly proper that the Government should be guided by that
best practice. I will take away her point and, if she agrees,
I will write to her particularly about that issue and copy in
my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park.
On the absence of aviation emissions from “The Clean Growth
Strategy”, I should say that if one looks at the revised
draft, one will see that it does take account of what we
published in respect of emissions—our clean air plan. I was
involved in drawing that up with Ministers from the
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and we do
need to take account of it. We need to ensure, as the hon.
Lady suggested—I entirely agree with her—that that process is
consistent and coherent and that we have an holistic approach
to air quality. It would be wrong of us to pursue a policy in
respect of airport expansion that did not chime with what we
hope to achieve more generally.
The hon. Lady also mentioned EU withdrawal. I, of course,
look forward to our escape from the European Union; I prefer
to talk about it as an escape than as a withdrawal. It has
been an awful business over most of my adult lifetime, and
hopefully that business is coming to an end. However, it is
right that as we regain our independence and freedom, we do
so in a way that does not in any sense lead to a detrimental
effect for the hon. Lady’s constituents or mine. It is
important that we plan that process carefully. She will
appreciate that the planning of it is well beyond my pay
grade, and on that basis it would be quite improper and
extremely unwise of me to say too much more about it. None
the less, I take her point and, again, we will look very
closely at the implications of our escape from the European
Union for this area of policy.
I have covered most of the subjects, albeit briefly. The
nature of these debates is that they are always brief, but I
will end, if I may, with Yeats, because we have not quoted
Yeats enough in this debate:
“Happiness is neither virtue nor pleasure nor this thing nor
that but simply growth. We are happy when we are growing.”
So it is with airports, so it is with the House and so it is
with the hard work of Members of Parliament such as the hon.
Lady.
|
