Air Transport

11 February 2004

It has been almost two months since the Department for Transport published its much-anticipated and much-delayed White Paper, "The Future of Air Transport." When the Secretary of State made a statement to the House last December, time constrained and limited the number of questions that could be asked, and as a result many Members here today were unable to ask questions. When that issue was raised on points of order, Madam Deputy Speaker said that there would be many more occasions on which the White Paper could be discussed. This debate is the first such occasion, and it is to the Government's discredit that they have not afforded Members an opportunity during their time to discuss what is an important national issue and, for many of us, a major constituency issue.

For both of those reasons, I am pleased to have secured today's debate. Despite time constraints, I hope that I will be able to allow many Members to raise specifics points, ideas and concerns. For my part, I want to make some general comments about the overall implications of the White Paper. I am sure that Members will understand, however, if I focus some of my remarks on Edinburgh airport and the impact that the proposals will have on those of my constituents living around it.

The fact that almost 500,000 responses to the consultation papers were received illustrates the interest that people have in the issue, and the importance that they place on it. For all concerned, the fact that the White Paper was published after great uncertainty and delay was welcome. Many people are now in a clearer position than they were before, but others face even greater uncertainty. In some cases, that uncertainty could go on for the best part of 15 years.

Mr. John Taylor (Solihull) (Con): On the question of uncertainty, I have something in common with the hon. Gentleman as regards Birmingham airport. Is he satisfied that there should be a voluntary blight compensation scheme funded by the airports, or should there be a standard national compensation scheme whereby everybody at least knows where they stand?

John Barrett: I shall talk about blight and compensation later. I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that constituents living in areas that have to be protected for airport expansion cannot have their future put on hold, as is currently planned for many people. The Government have estimated and made projections for transport growth, and have produced a set of plans on which such growth can be accommodated. That, in its most basic terms, is predict and provide, and few outside Government believe otherwise.

One of my greatest concerns about any airport and air transport expansion is the environmental impact. After all, air transport remains one of the most polluting forms of transport and any significant increase in air travel could wipe out all gains in CO2 emissions, which the UK will have to meet under the Kyoto protocols. The fact that the Government devoted an entire chapter of the White Paper to environmental impacts shows the importance that they place on the issue. The question is, what do we do to minimise the impact and ensure that the air industry makes an appropriate contribution to meeting the environmental costs that are incurred?

Unfortunately, the Government's chapter on the environment did not go down too well. The Aviation Environment Federation described the measure contained in the White Paper as "inadequate and ineffective". The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution said that

"the White Paper fails to take account of the serious impacts that the projected increase in air travel will have on the environment. It favours commerce over vital carbon dioxide reduction measures."

Other organisations, such as the Environment Agency, were equally critical. It is regrettable that there is a strong feeling among the environmental lobby, which was part of the consultation process, that its views were ignored.

David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire) (Lab/Co-op): Is not the core challenge the fact that, in the period covered by the White Paper, CO2 emissions from aircraft may rise from the proportion that they contributed in 2000 of 5 per cent. to 30 per cent? Should there not be fiscal incentives to tackle that problem?

John Barrett: I agree that the air industry gets off relatively lightly. There is not an even playing field for how alternative forms of transport are taxed. We will address the fiscal action that could be taken later.

The White Paper effectively pins environmental hopes on air traffic measures-more research and development and, most of all, emissions trading. However, it entirely lacks any sense of urgency and any practical targets as to how the industry's impacts on climate change will be controlled. The aviation industry supports an open emissions trading scheme but has called on the Government to resist introducing any other interim taxes or solutions. That is not surprising, as no industry wants to pay more tax-just as the average constituent does not enjoy paying income tax. However, those taxes are for a common good. The aviation industry is unlikely to be incorporated into international trading schemes until 2012, and progress so far does not fill me with confidence. Doing nothing in the short term is not an option.

Last year, the Environmental Audit Committee produced a first-class report entitled "Budget 2003 and Aviation", which laid down an environmental challenge for the Government on air transport. I agree with that Committee's frustration about double standards over transport taxes. We tax car fuel to high heaven, but aviation fuel gets away relatively scot-free. We slap VAT on to vehicles but not on to passenger tickets. There are a number of inequalities in fiscal measures in different areas of transport.

This is not only about fiscal measures. If the Minister's Department truly believes in an integrated transport policy, there must be a much greater focus on air-rail substitution. I was disappointed that in a White Paper of 49,000 words, only 560 - little more than 1 per cent. of the entire document-were devoted to air-rail substitution. It concerns me that the Government are not taking this matter as seriously as they could. Short-haul flights are the most polluting flights.

An excellent report by the Commission for Integrated Transport of only two days ago showed the degree to which short-haul flights could be replaced by high-speed rail. With the proper investment, Edinburgh to London rail times could be as short as two and a half hours. That journey takes me three to four hours on average-it took my assistant more than four hours today. Such times could easily be reduced if the present journeys were substituted by good high-speed rail links.

I checked the flight information for Edinburgh airport today. Of the 103 arriving flights, some 65-almost two thirds-were from airports that can be reached by rail. If the Government were to take on the mantle of air-rail substitution, we could help protect the environment and reduce the passenger forecast on which they have made so many of their projections.

Edinburgh airport is in the centre of my constituency, so I have another reason for taking a strong interest in the Government's aviation policy. It has already experienced considerable development and expansion. Between 1993 and 2002, passenger numbers increased from 2.5 million a year to almost 7 million. It makes a massive contribution to the economy of Edinburgh and the rest of Scotland. Many of my constituents are employed as airport staff, security personnel, hotel and car rental staff, and so forth. However, the airport's greatest contribution is perhaps that it acts as a gateway to the rest of Scotland-people arrive in Edinburgh, the capital, and they then move on elsewhere in the country. That brings millions of tourists to a city that is heavily dependent on tourism. It also brings businessmen and women to the rapidly expanding business parks around the city, such as Edinburgh park. It is also increasingly used by politicians who are visiting the Scottish Parliament-or who will be when, as is hoped, it is completed later in the year.

The White Paper lays out a strategic plan for the airport. The Government were right to put an emphasis on making the maximum use of the airport's existing facilities-increasing terminal capacity, extending the current runways and taxiways and increasing capacity, and specifically increasing the number of direct international air links. That will be of great benefit because it will bring more people to the city and offer my constituents greater choice for their holidays and business trips.

The biggest and most headline-grabbing part of the White Paper for Edinburgh was the go-ahead for a new parallel runway that will be constructed by about 2020. It does that on the basis that passenger demand will increase to 20 million passengers a year by 2030. Now many people, including some very knowledgeable people within the air transport industry, have told me about their doubts about whether that figure is realistic. They say that the true figure will be considerably fewer than 20 million per annum. BAA plc has acknowledged the great uncertainty contained in the Government's projections of air transport levels. That is why I said that the decision on the second runway did not have to be taken at this stage and that land to the north of the existing runway should be conserved for possible future use.

However, the Government decided to take that decision now, stating in paragraph 5.7 in the White Paper that

"there is . . . a good economic case for a phased development . . . constructing a new parallel runway, probably around 2020".

I hope that the Minister can explain why the Government have come out in favour of a second runway when clear uncertainty over passenger numbers remains. Why does his Department conclude that a second runaway is needed for 20 million passengers a year, when Gatwick handles more than 30 million passengers a year with only one runway? If he simply responds by saying that there would be smaller planes and that that means more plane movements, I must return to what I said earlier about air rail substitution.

I deviated quite strongly from the White Paper about the second point in paragraph 5.7, which states that there should be

"more use of the current crosswind runway for departing aircraft-although this will provide only a relatively small amount of additional runway capacity".

Of course, there is strong case for having a standby runway in the event of essential maintenance or for other reasons. However, there is a world of difference between using the crosswind runway on the odd occasion that it is required, and using it for all departing aircraft, as the White Paper proposes. When do the Government predict that the crosswind runway will start being used more "intensively", as they put it? The White Paper, in paragraph 9, states that it would be used only "for a limited period." With the new parallel runway not expected until as late as 2030, a potential 26 years is hardly a limited period.

The Secretary of State, in both written answers and answers given to me on the Floor of the House, has made much of the issue of noise improvements for people living in Cramond, which is part of my constituency. That is all fine and well, and I welcome those improvements, which will be seen by my constituents in that part of the city. However, the Minister's Department never makes any mention of the hundreds of people in North Gyle, Gogarloch and Wester Broom, which are parts of my constituency, who will experience a significant increase in noise levels above their houses.

Will the Minister - he may have to write to me on this point-tell me more about the safety issues surrounding the use of two intersecting runways at the same time? I have been advised that such a scheme could break Civil Aviation Authority rules, and that there is no similar scheme in any other UK - or even European Union - airport. On a practical basis, the idea of using two runways that lie almost perpendicular to each other simultaneously sounds dangerous to me, and I fly out of the airport every week.

The White Paper has added considerable uncertainty to about 33 households in my constituency, which are within the new airport boundary-as outlined on page 66. I accept that the map is only indicative. However, it is safe to say that the airport will have to expand its boundary and that the map took in households in Carlowrie and Lennymuir. For all intents and purposes, those people have-as I mentioned earlier to the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor)-had their lives put on hold while the local planners updated and while BAA came forward with concrete plans.

Some of my constituents have contacted me to say that they are suffering from stress. Some are uncertain about the future schooling of their children and all of them are effectively living in unsaleable properties. I have impressed on BAA the importance of keeping those residents fully up to date with any developments, whether they be positive or negative. As hon. Members can probably imagine, in such small communities rumours can quickly evolve. My office has already had to deal with a number of the concerns of local residents-those are only the people who live within the boundary of the new airport. Many thousands of people live-and will be affected-immediately outside the airport.

I am hopeful of having a meeting with BAA management in the near future, at which these concerns can be raised and expected time scales for action can be agreed. I strongly believe that BAA should enter into early negotiation with these residents about buy-out schemes.

Mr. Paul Truswell (Pudsey) (Lab): Would the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a need for airport operators to be required to publish a plan which describes future developments, the impact that they will have and what is being done to address that impact, so that there can be full public participation in that process?

John Barrett: We certainly agree on that point, although the planning process in Scotland may be slightly different from that in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. However, a major worry for constituents is that they are being kept in the dark-either deliberately, or by omission, because someone has not bothered to contact them. People should be brought into the dialogue at an early stage, and the airport operators are the ideal organisations to do that.

As I said earlier, in the case of my own constituency, waiting until BAA needs the land, possibly in 15 years' time, is not an option. I accept that planning issues north of the border are not an issue for the Minister, but I hope that he will work closely with Scottish Ministers to ensure a cross-border policy that protects the interests of those people and no doubt thousands more who are in a similar position throughout the UK.

The decision to propose an airport plan that takes over the land currently occupied by the Royal Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland was also very disappointing. The Department for Transport estimates that the Royal Highland showground would have to relocate by 2013. I appreciate that those issues are beyond the Minister's remit, but I tell him that there is considerable opposition to moving the showground. More than £10 million has been spent in the past four years developing the site into a world-class exhibition area. Since the first show there, 40 years ago, the showground has developed into a major centre that now attracts more than 1 million visitors every year and raises more than £200 million for the local economy-hotels, bed and breakfasts and shops throughout the city benefit from it. I cannot think of any other site in or around Edinburgh that can provide 18,000 sq m of space and parking for 20,000 cars. The proposal would mean that the show would have to move out of Edinburgh, and some have estimated the cost of moving to be about £500 million. I make no comment on who would pick up the bill. The society itself has understandably produced a number of determined statements opposing the idea of moving, but I have no doubt that the issue will rumble on for quite some time.

I shall end my remarks on a positive note. I was in complete agreement with the conclusions in the White Paper on the importance that it placed on improving surface access to the airport, and in particular the emphasis placed on the airport-rail link. The information document produced by the Scottish Executive at the beginning of the planning development for the rail link showed that only 16 per cent. of passengers travelling to and from Edinburgh airport did so by public transport, which is an outrageously low figure. That has put considerable strain on traffic flows on the A8-the nearest major road to the airport-and has added to the considerable pollution faced by my constituents in the villages of Ratho Station and Newbridge.

The detailed rail-link plans unveiled last week are a considerable commitment and run contrary to many of the doom-and-gloom predictions that such a scheme would never take off. Work is now expected to start in two years' time, and although there may be some disruption while construction takes place, I am hopeful and confident that people will benefit from an excellent new service from 2010.

I am aware that many other hon. Members want to contribute to the debate. I hope that this will not be the last opportunity that we have to discuss the White Paper and that the Government will not leave it to Back-Bench Members to test their luck in further Adjournment debate ballots. In the meantime, I look forward to the Minister's comments on the issues that I have raised.