| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
17 Jun 2009 : Column 80WH—continued
David Taylor:
I made one of the earliest predictions that the likely outcome of the 2010 election would be a hung Parliament, possibly with the hon. Gentleman as a compromise leader of the Administration. However, in a serious vein, I have heard him speak movingly and effectively about the polluter paying and level runways
for aviation. Is not taxation needed to ensure that aviation compensates wider society for the environmental downsides that it causes? No one is talking about banning people from flying, but the actual costs should be reflected in the ticket price.
Lembit Öpik: I agree. People who have looked at websites when booking flights know the relatively small additional cost of paying for the environmental damage of flying. The environmental offset for a flight is not very expensive. Of course, there are issues with offset, but, once again, that is for another time. Let me adamantly confirm that when I appoint the hon. Gentleman Minister for Transport—
Lembit Öpik: Paragliding, actually. I will expect the hon. Gentleman to ensure that the damage caused by every passenger air mile is paid for.
Let me move to regional airport policy. The A380 and the Boeing 747 have been superbly successful aircraft. Indeed, the A380 is the 21st-century jumbo jet for hub-to-hub operations. I recently had the privilege of flying on the A380 with Singapore Airlines, which has an unsurpassed quality of service in economy class and, I imagine, in business class and what it calls suite class on long-haul flights.
However, the real opportunity for regional airport policy is point to point. Aircraft in the design phase at present—the A350 and the Boeing Dreamliner—will provide an opportunity for regions to be connected to other regions around the world. There are obvious economic benefits to that, but there are also environmental benefits. If a journey does not involve a change—in other words, if it can be made in one flight instead of two, especially on efficient aircraft such as the A350 or the Dreamliner—it will have a smaller environmental footprint.
It seems clear that if we are to have a serious regional policy and relieve the congestion around London, point-to-point flights are the natural way to go. Once again, let me emphasise the importance of environmental considerations. I am not suggesting point to point between destinations that can be connected by high-speed rail, but it is the obvious answer for intercontinental journeys. As the Oxford Economics report implies, we can get economic, cultural and political benefits without having to make short flights but by ensuring that point to point on an international basis is possible.
I steer clear of the third runway debate, because there is only so much wrath I want to incur for my party’s Front-Bench spokesmen, but I observe that there are three certainties when it comes to British aviation policy: first, the demand for aviation will continue to rise; secondly, we should commit ourselves to high-speed rail links to obviate the need for short regional flights; and, thirdly, point to point offers an enormous opportunity to connect regions and gain economic benefits. No Government should take away people’s right to fly, but every Government should commit themselves to the right to save the environment at the same time.
It is not realistic for us to control demand for aviation—that is beyond the political capacity of any party—but we must be realistic about reasonable flight distances, and we should also be realistic about speaking with one
voice in the collective interests of Britain. Within that, there is an interest in having a proper and positive strategy on international aviation.
10.15 am
Frank Cook (Stockton, North) (Lab): It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr. Streeter, for the first time in 26 years. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) on two counts: first, securing the debate, and, secondly, the magnificent way he presented a well-researched demonstration of folly on the part of the Government.
I have no airport in my patch. In 1983, my hon. Friend’s predecessor, Tony Blair, said to me, “Will you take care of my airport? I know nothing about them.” So, from then until 5 May 2005, I looked after that airport. After that, of course, my hon. Friend took over the responsibility, and I am pleased to say that he has done an excellent job.
Teesside airport—or Durham Tees Valley, as it is now called—is the airport in which I have taken a particular interest. It was the airport where I did my flying lessons, and I have nursed it like a baby for 20-odd years. It is particularly with regard to Teesside that I want to speak, but the statements that I shall make are relevant to every regional airport in the country.
Rather than regurgitating stuff that has already been discussed, I want to talk about increased charges for air passenger duty. The irony is that Holland has disregarded it—it has done a U-turn—and Greece has done away with it altogether. That has created a climate in which economy airlines such as Ryanair are basing their aircraft elsewhere in Europe. In fact, Ryanair has moved to Italy; we do not have it in this country any more. That is a common move.
Europe is taking over our markets, and the Government have to realise that. It is as plain as the nose on your face that we will pay heavily for their deafness. The issue was first raised with them in the middle of last year, but no action was taken. The first realistic meeting that we managed to secure, in March this year, was as a result of the persistence of my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield. Several of us were there, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) and those my hon. Friend identified earlier. We were promised that we might have some better news this month, so, like him, I anxiously await word from the Minister about what he is doing.
For those who are interested in the third runway, I voted for the damned thing. I would be happy to see it built and am sure that it would be of benefit, but can we wait that long? When we consider what we welcomed as the northern gateway—it was supposed to help to bridge the gap between north and south—we must ask whether we can wait a further 10 years. The third runway is planned for 2019—that is, if it is built by 2019. I used to train planning engineers, and I know how they can get it wrong.
Mr. Jamie Reed:
Some say no taxation without representation, and it is clearly far less exciting to say no taxation without regional airport connectivity, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is entirely unfair for his constituents and mine, and those of everyone else in
this room, to pay for the third runway at Heathrow without being able to fly to it from their own regional airport?
Frank Cook: Hear, hear. So be it. It is self-evident, is it not? I do not need to comment on that, because it is sound logic.
The suggestion being put about in some quarters—certainly from interests such as BAA and even by the former Transport Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon)—that the cure to all our ills is the third runway at Heathrow is fanciful.
The reality is that the death of regional services to Heathrow—only a handful are left, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield said—is a here-and-now issue. If we are to improve the economic welfare of the north of England and the other regions in the country, we cannot wait. The fundamental reason why regional services have vanished from Heathrow is that the cost structure operated by BAA, which is endorsed by the Civil Aviation Authority and the Competition Commission, means that they are uneconomic.
The Government have indicated that they might be persuaded to consider ring-fencing slots for some regional services through the public service obligations orders, but which airline will be prepared to use those as long as the unfair and punitive charging system remains in place? We have to change the charging system.
The real solution is for the Government to say to the CAA, the Competition Commission, and even BAA, that a key element in deciding the costing structure at Heathrow has to be securing the viability of regional services, given their critical importance to the nation’s economy, and especially given the ambitions to bridge the north-south economic divide. Ministers have claimed that they have no powers to intervene over the Heathrow charging regime, but I do not accept that. I have been in the House for 26 years and I know what Governments can and cannot do. There is not a lot that they cannot do—I have seen it and been part of it—so it is nonsense to say that they cannot intervene.
It is no use waiting until some new golden age in which the third runway will solve our ills, because it will not happen. Unless the Government act now, by the time a third runway does happen—if it happens—Schiphol airport in Amsterdam will be even more firmly entrenched as a gateway to the world for much of the UK public. Incidentally, Schiphol is not the only threat. In Germany, Frankfurt airport has planning approval to begin building a fourth runway, and a third passenger terminal, along with accompanying infrastructure, will open in 2011. The longer we sit here doing nothing, the more we endanger our future.
I have nursed Durham Tees Valley airport for well over 20 years—for 25 years, anyway—and I could go on talking for the rest of the day, but I understand that at least another two hon. Members want to get into the debate. I hope that they can manage it in the eight minutes remaining.
10.23 am
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh, North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op):
I will try to keep my remarks as brief as possible, Mr. Streeter. I congratulate my hon. Friend
the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) on securing the debate. He concentrated on the economic development benefits, as he sees them, of regional airport development. That is important, but I want to bring into the debate some other, wider dimensions and, of course, as right hon. and hon. Members will have gathered from my earlier comments, I want to say something about the environmental dimension, which is also important when considering policy on regional airports and airports more generally.
The fact is—we all know this—that the growth of air travel is a potential major contribution to the growth of UK greenhouse gas emissions. We have stop that growth, or reduce it, if we are to meet the UK’s wider climate change objectives. That does not mean that we will stop people flying or that we should seek to do so. All of us, including me, fly from time to time. The question is, what is the right balance between environmental considerations and the other economic and societal considerations that have been mentioned today? On regional airport policy and airport policy generally, it is about getting the balance right when we take forward the policies for the future.
Some points have to be made and fed into the debate on regional airport policy. Where possible, domestic journeys in particular should be taken by less environmentally damaging forms of travel. Policy should be designed to encourage that, which means high-speed rail. I hear the comments made by my hon. Friend, who represents the north-east, about high-speed rail. I would like high-speed rail to happen much more quickly in many other parts of the UK than is envisaged in the Government plans. However, I welcome—
Hilary Armstrong (North-West Durham) (Lab): Does my hon. Friend accept that there is little prospect of high-speed rail in areas such as the north-east, or even Scotland, in the medium term?
Does my hon. Friend also accept that one of the main economic factors, which links to the environment, is the fact that we are a global nation and we need to develop relationships with companies from the other side of the world? We in the north-east have good relationships with such companies, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) said. However, without regional links those companies will say, “We can’t make that link. There’s no point in our going to the north-east, because we can’t get there easily enough.”
The environmental arguments in respect of Schiphol are worse, because the Dutch are not being as strong on the environment with airlines as our Government are.
Mark Lazarowicz: I would like high-speed rail to happen much more quickly than some people envisage, but I also take the point about the need to improve connectivity now. A factor in respect of high-speed rail is creating links to major airports and other airports in the UK, including Heathrow and Manchester. But things could be done to improve connectivity through the existing rail network. I make some of my journeys to Edinburgh by air because the last train from London to Edinburgh is at 6 pm, which is not convenient for many business passengers, let alone leisure passengers. Things could be done in that regard, too.
Three airlines fly from Edinburgh to Manchester—there are 10 flights a day. One reason for that is that that route is about half the distance of Edinburgh to London. The
train can sometimes take about four hours to get there. Things could be done to improve existing regional connectivity, including to airports, which might meet some of the concerns mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield.
I accept some of the points made about connectivity, but my point is that we need to get away from journeys within the UK that could be made by other forms of transport, thereby freeing up space for that type of air travel, perhaps leading to connectivity for the north-east, which is not provided for at present. I have some reservations about the arguments advanced on reserving slots in the way my hon. Friend suggested, but I am happy to consider that. However, we cannot lose sight of the wider environmental considerations.
With regard to economic trends, and some of the trends in air travel, there is a case for reviewing airport policy and taking on board the points on connectivity made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Durham (Hilary Armstrong), but the case for reviewing the decision on a third runway is stronger than ever. I hope that the Government, in considering how airport policy is advanced, take account of the wider environmental considerations, along with the important economic considerations raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield.
10.28 am
Mr. Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab): I thank Catherine Coulthard for the support that she has given me in preparing for the debate.
It has been well stated that the north of England needs some strategic intervention in respect of its airports for it to be able to be competitive not just within the UK, but internationally. There are two principal reasons for that. First, strategic Government interventions now in northern airports will reduce the need for other, probably more difficult and expensive, state interventions in other parts of the northern economy in future. To reduce and ultimately stop the dependency of parts of the north of England on long-term Government intervention and support, it is imperative that the Government invest wisely to ensure that the north can compete in its own right, regionally within the UK and internationally. There is real intrinsic value in spending now; it means spending much less later.
Secondly, the south-east cannot keep growing indefinitely in population, the impact of its growth on the environment and much else. This is not good for the country or for our economy, and not good for the people of the south-east. It is, ultimately, bad news for our democracy as well. This Government have a proud record of redistributing wealth on a social and individual basis. That redistribution must accelerate regionally. The economy of the north of England does not require a long-term hand-out; it requires a short, sharp hand-up.
At a time when we are witnessing the end of unregulated energy markets and we can see for ourselves the effect of light regulation on the banking system, it is clear that the policy conclusions in both those sectors need to be taken over into the aviation sector. We need strategic interventions in the regional airports in this country, right now.
I would like to meet the Minister with a delegation to discuss the importance of Carlisle airport to the Cumbrian economy, and I hope that can happen very soon. I support those who are calling for ring-fenced landing slots at Heathrow.
10.30 am
Norman Baker (Lewes) (LD): I congratulate the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) on securing the debate. I do not agree with everything he said, as I will explain, but I listened to him with more sympathy that I would have done to his predecessor—[Interruption.]I wish that the former Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for North-West Durham (Hilary Armstrong), would stand up and make a speech instead of continually intervening from a sedentary position. She does that all the time, and she is still doing it.
The hon. Member for Sedgefield set out two objectives. First, he recognises the need to secure help for regional economies, and I support that objective. Secondly, he expressed sympathy for direct flights, or point-to-point flights, as my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) described them. I also support that objective. Clearly, if one must travel from A to B and can do so without changing flights on the way, carbon emissions are reduced.
I support those two objectives, but I do not agree with the prescription set out by the hon. Member for Sedgefield. I have listened to hon. Members here and on the Floor of the House who seem to live in a parallel world where climate change does not exist. It does exist—
Hilary Armstrong: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Climate change exists and it must be dealt with in the round, as my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire did, taking account of the wish to travel and the environmental footprint.
Hilary Armstrong: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is prepared to give way to me. I certainly do not want to do anything other than improve climate change, carbon footprinting and so on in this country and worldwide. Does he accept that BMI’s policy, for example, of cancelling flights from Teesside means that the environmental damage is greater because people use other airports? What faith does he have in manufacturing potential? Despite what has been said, a firm in my constituency is close to an American company that is delivering significant changes to aeroplanes that will reduce their effect on the environment. We should support and invest in such companies to produce better environmental opportunities for air travel.
Norman Baker: I agree that we should support such companies, but I have talked to the aviation industry and others in the transport sector, and my assessment is that we are some way from dealing with carbon emissions from aviation, although solutions for road transport are rather nearer. We are probably 30, 40 or 50 years away from a sensible solution that will make a real difference to alternative fuel technology for aviation.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |