| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
2.44 pm
Mr. Mark Francois (Rayleigh) (Con): I am delighted to be able to participate in this debate on aviation services, as I wish to raise several issues relating to aviation in the county of Essex. Since the Committee published its report, we have also had a reply from the Government and the subsequent White Paper on air transport, published in December 2003.
I am pleased that in the White Paper the Government abandoned plans to build an airport at Cliffe, on the Hoo peninsula. As someone who campaigned against Cliffe from the outset, I believe that that was the correct decision. I was always opposed to Cliffe on environmental grounds, particularly because of the
potential adverse effect on my constituents from 24-hour operation of the so-called crosswind runway, which could have taken night flights directly over my constituency. In addition, I was also opposed because of the effect on wildlife habitats in the Thames estuary, including the bird populations in the area and the related risk of bird strike for aircraft safety. The right decision was reached on Cliffe, and I hope that the matter is now closed.
Bob Spink (Castle Point) (Con): Does my hon. Friend share my concern at reports in the press recently that suggest that the campaigners against expansion at London Heathrow and Stansted now threaten to take the Cliffe decision to the High court to have it reopened? Would not that be a retrograde step? Indeed, it would spoil the arguments of those campaigners, because we in Essex should stand shoulder to shoulder against the inappropriate expansion of our airports.
Mr. Francois: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He was also an active campaigner against any development at Cliffe. I have some sympathy with the protestors against Stansted, and I shall give them some support later in my speech, but reopening the issue of Cliffe is not the way to solve that problem. The right decision was taken, and we should accept it and move on.
The White Paper also encouraged development of smaller regional airports, including Southend. Southend airport is actually located at Rochford, just over my constituency boundary. It has a proud history, having served as a forward operating base for Fighter Command during the Battle of Britain, something that I know will be close to the heart of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). The airport has developed more peaceful uses over the years and now specialises as a repair and maintenance centre for aircraft, which accounts for more than 80 per cent. of the airport's turnover.
Southend airport's owners, Regional Airports Ltd., and the airport director, Roger Campbell, have done a good job of turning the airport round financially in the last few years, and I pay tribute to them for that. Southend operates a small number of passenger flights, domestically and to the continent, but that may be curtailed in future by new Civil Aviation Authority regulations governing safety zones at the end of runways. Southend's runway has a medieval grade I listed church—St Laurence's—at one end.
To put it mildly, that is a complicated situation, but to cut a long story short, the airport operators applied for planning permission to pick up the church and relocate it several hundred metres away, in order to try and comply with the new regulations. The airport owners insist that the technology is available to do that. However, the idea has not proved popular with the local population and the planning application was resoundingly turned down by Southend council. After careful consideration, the airport operators have subsequently decided not to appeal against that decision, which is a welcome development. However, it raises the question of where we go from here.
Given Southend airport's relative proximity to Stansted, I cannot see it ever becoming a major passenger hub. Realistically, the bulk of the airport's future business is likely to remain in the repair and refurbishment of aircraft, which is already its core business. However, I hope that it may be possible to achieve some compromise that does not involve relocating the church, but would allow passenger flights to continue from Southend. One option, which I suggest directly to the Minister, might be to utilise passenger aircraft such as the BAe HS146—the so-called whispering jet—and the later generation RJ series of aircraft. Those aircraft are already used at London City airport, because they can operate from a short runway and they also have the added advantage of being relatively quiet. If the CAA can interpret the new regulations sensibly and without risking safety, then RJ series aircraft might be able to provide passenger services from Southend without the need to relocate St. Laurence's church. That would be a classic British compromise and I hope that it may yet come to pass.
The Government's proposal for a second runway at Stansted, theoretically available from 2012/2013, would increase the airport's capacity from 20 million passengers per annum to 80 million—a gigantic fourfold increase. The White Paper is extremely prescriptive about the location of the second runway, some distance from the existing one. Consequently, the expanded airport would have a massive footprint, equivalent to the size of Heathrow or larger but deposited in the heart of rural Essex. Expanding the airport's footprint that way would cause severe environmental damage—which, even though my constituency lies south of the county rather than to the north—greatly concerns me. As my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) remarked, it is incumbent on all Members of Parliament for Essex constituencies to stand shoulder to shoulder on this issue.
If a second runway were to be developed at Stansted, Essex would lose a number of beautiful villages for ever and there would be severe consequences in terms of noise and pollution. The proposal is linked with plans for building a large volume of new housing in north-west Essex. Although we are not debating housing—Madam Deputy Speaker would rapidly call me to order if I attempted to do so—there is considerable anger in Essex at the scale of the new housebuilding proposals—which would eventually bring about the concreting-over of large swathes of countryside around Harlow and Saffron Walden. I commend our excellent parliamentary spokesman for Harlow, Robert Halfon, for speaking out strongly against the proposed over-development.
BAA estimates that the cost of expansion—including the new runway, additional terminal space, hard standing, fuel facilities and the panoply of buildings that go with airport growth on that scale—would be between £3 billion and £4 billion. The Government have repeatedly said that there will be no significant public subsidy, so the cost would have to be found from the private sector—chiefly by the BAA itself. However, as many so-called budget airlines use Stansted, they are unlikely ever to pay the higher landing charges that realistically would be needed to recoup the massive cost of expansion. The major carriers, which might in theory
be able to afford increased landing fees at Stansted, have made it plain that they wish to remain at Heathrow and Gatwick.Moreover, the CAA is opposed to any BAA proposals to allow cross-subsidy from Heathrow or Gatwick to fund expansion at Stansted. The major airlines would understandably be angry if they had to pay even higher landing fees at Heathrow and Gatwick to fund Stansted's expansion for the benefit of their competitors. An article in The Daily Telegraph today, headlined "BAA may fight for cross-subsidies", quotes Sir Roy McNulty, chairman of the CAA:
- "It seems entirely reasonable that the working assumption should be that the CAA will continue to regulate BAA's designated airports on an individual—or standalone—basis, both up to 2008 and beyond."
Partly because of the weakness of the financial case for the expansion, partly because the White Paper is so prescriptive about the second runway's location, and partly because of fears that as the two runways would be so far apart, at some point in the future there might be an attempt to add a third runway between them. Essex county council—supported by other local authorities—spearheaded an attempt to subject the matter to judicial review. I hope that the application will be successful and that, as a result, a second runway at Stansted will not be built.
Mr. Stringer: I basically agree with the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument, but does he agree with the Select Committee that a solution would be for the BAA to be broken up—so that the three airports would be freestanding commercial enterprises?
Mr. Francois: I will not comment specifically on the BAA's commercial future but leave that for others. My belief is that it is not feasible for the BAA as currently constituted to redevelop Stansted in the way proposed, for all the reasons that I have attempted to elucidate.
There is a way out. Stansted currently accommodates 20 million passengers per annum. Not long ago, permission was granted to increase that number to 25 million. The BAA is currently working on a proposal to increase the figure to 35 million passengers per annum. The maximum capacity of Stansted's existing single runway equates to 40 million passengers. Although there would have to be some expansion of the terminal and other supporting facilities, good design would make it possible to accommodate that number of passengers without the airport's current footprint. Capacity at Stansted could be doubled without building a second runway, so the people of Essex could play a part in helping to expand the overall capacity of UK airports.
I am not suggesting that people who live around Stansted airport would be overjoyed by an increase in passenger capacity from 20 million per annum to 40 million, as that would still present them with a number of challenges—but I believe they would find that preferable to the building of a second runway, with an increase in passenger numbers from 20 million to 80 million.
I accept that, as the Government have said repeatedly, doing nothing is not an option, but facilitating a growth in passenger numbers at Stansted from 20 million to 40 million using the existing runway would be far from doing nothing. It would involve the people of Essex paying an environmental price but not such a tremendous price that they would find it impossible to accept. The compromise solution would mitigate the environmental impact by allowing some economic development around Stansted—but not to an extent that would be unacceptable to people living in Essex and across the border in Hertfordshire.
I repeat: there is a way out. The people of Essex are not being NIMBYish in any way. I hope that the Minister will take my suggested solution on board, so that expansion can occur at Stansted with one runway—without despoiling the Essex countryside in such an awful way.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |