Oral Answers to Questions

Adam Afriyie Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

15. What recent assessment he has made of the financial viability of the proposed Heathrow third runway.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Paul Maynard)]

My Department and the Civil Aviation Authority have conducted assurance work on the financing and affordability of expansion proposals. This has concluded that, so far as can be assessed at this stage and assuming current market conditions, Heathrow is in principle able to privately finance expansion, but we will continue to monitor this as plans mature.

[Adam Afriyie]

Given the compounding costs and constraints on a third runway at Heathrow, it seems unlikely that it will ever be built. What Heathrow has succeeded in doing is blocking its more competitive rivals from building extra capacity. In that light, when will the Government review their decision?

[Paul Maynard]

The airports national policy includes a requirement that any developers should demonstrate that their scheme is cost-efficient and sustainable, and that it seeks to minimise costs over its lifetime. It is a responsibility of scheme developers to follow the process set out in the Planning Act 2008 and to submit proposals to the Planning Inspectorate. We will consider the merits of potential schemes before referring them to the decision-making Minister with the recommendation.

National Policy Statement: Airports

Adam Afriyie Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

We have heard about some of the human and environmental consequences of the decision that we may be about to make, but it is worth repeating them.

Heathrow is already the noisiest airport in the world, and a third runway will obviously make that problem worse. The Heathrow area has been in breach of air pollution laws for more than a decade. Expansion will mean 250,000 more flights, 25 million more road passenger journeys, and therefore, plainly, more pollution. A third runway will mean the destruction of old and entrenched communities such as those described by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell)—I pay tribute to Armelle and her campaign against the third runway, which goes back many years. Thousands of homes will be destroyed to make way for the new runway. Families will be displaced and simply told to start again. Official forecasts tell us that Heathrow expansion is not reconcilable with the Climate Change Act 2008. Those are just some of the consequences of the way in which we are potentially likely to vote tonight.

Members would only sign off those costs if they believed that the economic upside justified it, but so much of what we have heard about the economic benefits is propaganda. It is not even very sophisticated propaganda. Heathrow bosses must be laughing out loud when they tell us that expansion can deliver 250,000 more flights without any extra car journeys, or that a third runway will mean that fewer people will be affected by noise.

Let me briefly say something about the economic case. In its 2014 report, on which the Government’s decision was based, the Airports Commission estimated that Heathrow expansion would deliver £147 billion worth of total economic benefit. The Government lapped it up, but then, in last year’s draft NPS, they quietly revised the figure down to between £72 billion and £74.2 billion—less than half the original estimate. Today’s NPS uses the same figure, but admits that it is a gross figure which does not include the actual economic and financial costs of the proposal.

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that if the runway were ever built—in fact, it would be half a runway—it would be the most expensive place on earth on which to land, and that that would knock out the economics of improving our trade and connectivity?

[Zac Goldsmith]

As would be expected, my hon. Friend has made an impeccable point.

The net present value, a metric which does include all the costs and benefits, reduces the figure to between £2.9 billion and minus £2.5 billion over a 60-year period. So the upside has gone from £147 billion to minus £2.5 billion, yet the Government’s position has not budged.

It gets worse. A report from the New Economics Foundation shows that three quarters of any new capacity from a third runway will be taken up by international-to-international transfer passengers who never leave the airport. The Department for Transport’s own guidance says that they add nothing whatsoever to the economy, and should not be counted. If they are excluded—as the Government have recommended to themselves—the NPV is reduced by a further £5.5 billion, which produces a minus figure. DfT analysis also shows that an overrun in Heathrow’s costs of just 1% could be enough to negate the overall benefits of the scheme.

None of that, by the way, takes into account the point made by the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable) about Transport for London’s estimated £15 billion price tag for a link between the Heathrow expansion and surface level. It also does not take into account the legal and planning complexities that are unique to Heathrow. A gigantic legal challenge, backed by local authorities, City Hall and numerous organisations, is waiting around the corner from tonight’s vote.

This is what is so utterly perplexing. Why would we choose the most polluting, most disruptive, most expensive and least deliverable option, when the alternative is at least as economically beneficial, and vastly simpler to deliver? It is not because Heathrow will deliver more connectivity. According to every metric and every analysis, Gatwick and Heathrow deliver the same. Even the discredited Airports Commission’s own analysis predicts that whichever airport expands, the UK as a whole will achieve almost identical connectivity.

That brings me to the NPS. I am having to skip whole chunks of what I was going to say. The NPS is a horror story. The Secretary of State told the House that Heathrow expansion would “enable” growth at Birmingham, Newquay, Aberdeen, and other regional airports. That is nonsense. The Government’s own analysis shows that Heathrow expansion hinders growth at regional airports. It does not “enable” it. The Transport Committee found that if expansion goes ahead, there will be 74,000 fewer direct international flights per year to and from airports in the non-London regions in 2030, and that the figure will double by 2050.

In the last few seconds available to me, let me ask the Secretary of State to take this opportunity to put the record straight, because he has misled the House. We are being asked to approve a monstrous scheme, and I urge—beg, even—Members to look at the details before they cast their votes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

Of course I rise to defend my constituents, and I think everyone in this House would expect me to do so. Given the idea of Windsor castle being triple glazed and of 7 million visitors to Windsor being overwhelmed by the noise of aircraft, I can do nothing but object to the proposal. It would require the demolition of hundreds of houses. The noise levels experienced across the entire Windsor constituency and in Bracknell Forest, Woking and everywhere else in the area are already dreadful and would get much worse. We know about the pollution levels and I am pretty sure that everyone present will have experienced the congestion on the M4. It is a very bad idea to expand Heathrow.

People would expect me, as the MP for Windsor, to say these things, and they would expect me to be a nimby but, frankly, with my background in business and my having studied economics, my major objection to the third runway at Heathrow is to do with the national interest and national economics.

I have to ask a few questions. First, why do we believe we will have more flights to the regions? I have been an MP for 13 years, and I know how easy it is just to read the briefings and go with the flow, but the Government’s own data and analysis say that every single region of the United Kingdom will have fewer connections than they would have had if Heathrow were not expanded.

[Lilian Greenwood]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Adam Afriyie]

I will not give way because of the time available.

Every single region, particularly the south-east, will have fewer flights. The second area where it is easy to have some fairly lazy thinking is the hub-and-spoke concept. The facts have clearly changed, and it is now about point-to-point travel. Nobody wants to get on an aircraft and then change to get somewhere else. Everybody wants to fly direct. The aircraft that are being purchased today by every single airline are point-to-point aircraft. Ninety-seven per cent. of all aircraft ordered are for point-to-point travel.

Aircraft can get from London to Sydney direct. Why are we showing our age? Why are we showing this lazy thinking, that we need a 20th century solution to a 21st century problem? I know it is difficult, because Heathrow has a huge amount of propaganda. Heathrow has a lot to gain. It paid £1 billion in dividends to shareholders while making only a £500 million profit. Of course it is in Heathrow’s interest to try to get this decision in its favour and to try to slow the process so it can continue to drive up landing fees.

Lastly, it upsets me as a Conservative to sit on these Benches and see us all nodding our heads and saying that we should go ahead and create the most expensive airport in the world at which to land. Why on earth would we commit to such a project?

[Crispin Blunt]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. The way to make both Gatwick and Heathrow more expensive is simply to create no more slots by having no more capacity.

[Adam Afriyie]

Funnily enough, I have some sympathy with that view. I agree with my hon. Friend on having an offshore airport to address the country’s very long-term interests. An offshore airport slot would be a lot less expensive than a Heathrow slot. It costs just six quid per passenger to land at Gatwick, but it costs £24 per passenger to land at Heathrow. It is crazy to invest further in Heathrow to create a £34 per passenger cost for the airlines. That makes no sense whatsoever.

I cannot support this, and I hope that, in the coming months, as they begin to realise that Heathrow is pulling a fast one on them, the Government will begin to back off. We will then all gradually begin to change our minds.

Heathrow

Adam Afriyie Excerpts

Thursday 7th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

The answer to that question is, because it is a number that we do not recognise, but if there were a better justification for it, it might be that we would. But of course it is perfectly clear that we do expect transport improvements to be made, and we expect the private sector to bear a substantial proportion of the cost.

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

This private company is running rings around the Department for Transport and the Secretary of State, and there is a history of a litany of broken promises, whether to Scotland, regional airports or the Government or on the number of jobs it would create. Why is this clause here specifically for Heathrow when it is clearly indicating that it wants those liabilities paid for should they arise: why specifically for Heathrow?

[Jesse Norman]

Of course these statements were not purely in relation to Heathrow; there were several of them, as discussed, but two have fallen away. All this does is recap a perfectly well-established set of rights it has in law, and nothing has changed from that point of view. The point of the detailed and careful way in which this has been taken forward is to make absolutely clear that, when HAL makes a commitment, it can be held properly publicly accountable for it by due process of law and by agreement with the Government.

Airports National Policy Statement

Adam Afriyie Excerpts

Thursday 7th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

Sir David, it is a particular pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, on the eve of the 35th anniversary of our election to Parliament. It strikes me that we have been discussing this subject for most of those 35 years.

Sir David, you represent a constituency on one side of the Thames estuary and I represent a constituency on the other side. You and I are both fully aware of the discussions in the mists of time relating to Maplin Sands, and more recently those relating to Boris island. I think it is fair to say that we could probably agree, although I would not wish to drag you into the argument, that neither of those proposals was worth the back-end of the envelope that they were written on.

I am concerned about much of this matter. I pay huge tribute to the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), and indeed to her predecessor, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman). Together with their Committees, they have put an enormous amount of hard work into diligently scrutinising the proposals that we are considering this afternoon. I am extremely grateful to them for the work they have done, as I am sure all colleagues are.

This morning, colleagues who have opened their emails will have received a letter from Sir Howard Davies, the former chairman of the Airports Commission, and Sir John Armitt, a former commissioner at the Airports Commission and is now the Chair of the National Infrastructure Commission. In that letter, Sir Howard and Sir John say:

“The UK benefits from the third largest international aviation network in the world after the US and China; London has the largest origin and destination market of any city in the world; and Heathrow until 2013 served more international passengers than any other airport and even now is surpassed only by Dubai…the continuation of this success cannot be taken for granted, and the rise of Dubai is only one indicator of the risks that the UK faces. … As other hub airports in Europe and beyond continue to expand, the impression created is one of the UK being increasingly inward-facing and having limited ambition to expand its reach, even as it navigates the uncertainty caused by its impending departure from the European Union. Now should be the time to build on our strengths, not to diminish them, but preventing expansion at Heathrow would achieve only the latter.”

I am not remotely unsympathetic to the concerns expressed by colleagues representing seats in west and south London. My daughter has a home in Chiswick under the flightpath to Heathrow. I am a sufficiently infrequent overnight stayer not to have become acclimatised to the air traffic, so I understand what it means, and I also have considerable concern for the quality of the air that my six-year-old grandson, Soren, will breathe during the course of his young life.

That said, I support the proposals that the Government laid before the House on Tuesday, although two issues have to be addressed. Curiously, the Select Committee to some extent skated over them. The first issue is the timescale. Eight years seems wildly optimistic to me. I am not a betting man, but if I were, I would bet a gold sovereign that there will not be wheels on tarmac at any new runway at Heathrow inside 15 years. The other issue is freight, which was not mentioned to any degree in either the Secretary of State’s remarks on Tuesday or the Select Committee report. I will touch on both those points in the context of another airfield that is and should be available to us.

On Tuesday, the Secretary of State said that

“a new operational runway at Heathrow is still a number of years away.”

He says eight years; I have said 15. He continued:

“The Airports Commission recommended that there would also be a need for other airports to make more intensive use of their existing infrastructure”.

He went on to say that

“the Government support other airports making best use of their existing runways.”—[Official Report, 5 June 2018; Vol. 642, c. 171.]

Heathrow handles more freight than any other port in the country, but Heathrow is full. Even allowing for a growth in belly cargo, the capacity to handle more at Heathrow is non-existent. Gatwick is largely but not exclusively a holiday airport. It does not handle much belly cargo and has little freight capacity. Stansted has the capacity to some extent, but the turnaround time is eight hours, which is unacceptable for perishable goods. There is one airport in the south-east—Manston, in Kent—that is capable of turning around a freight aircraft in an hour and a half, has the capacity, has the runway and could bridge the gap. I want to direct attention to that this afternoon, very briefly.

Manston airport was operational until 2013. In November 2013, it was obtained for £1 by Mrs Ann Gloag, one of the shareholders in Stagecoach. She rang me on 30 November and told me in terms, “I am going to invest millions of pounds in Manston, and I will give it two years to turn things around.” Within three months, she was closing it. It is absolutely obvious that she and her successors—actually, the airport was acquired on a 100% mortgage, so effectively she still controls it—always had the intention to try to smother Manston in housing. As an aside, Manston airport is smack on top of the Thanet aquifer. If housing was put on it, the aquifer would dry up and Thanet would run out of water. That is one of the many minor details that the proposed developers have sought to overlook. That, however, is not the point of my case this afternoon.

The point of my case this afternoon is that we have a gap that we have to bridge. Today, we are losing business—not tomorrow, next week, next month or next year, but today—to Frankfurt, Schiphol, Charles de Gaulle and Dubai, as Sir Howard said in his letter.

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

I am impressed by my hon. Friend’s passion for Manston, despite some of the challenges. He talks about competitiveness and how we are losing business to other European countries and further afield, including Dubai, but does he accept that if landing charges per passenger go up to £31, £32 or possibly even £40 from their already very high level of £22 to £23, the third runway at Heathrow will drive even more business away from this country?

[Sir Roger Gale]

For the sake of argument, I will accept the point my hon. Friend is making, but it is safe to say that my argument is that I am concerned about UK Ltd and post-Brexit freight. As a country, we will have to develop markets in the middle east, Asia, the far east, Africa and South America if we are going to survive in a post-Brexit modern economy. We will have to have air freight capacity to handle high-value goods coming in and going out. There is nowhere within striking distance of London for those goods to go.

I freely concede that regional airports can and will play some part in helping to solve the problem, but the problem is massive, and if we do not solve it now and we lose Manston airport as a potential freight hub, we will live to regret it. Once it is gone, it can never be retrieved. It is a national asset, not a local asset, and it has to be regarded as such. I hope and expect that when a development consent order goes in for Manston airport, the Planning Inspectorate will have cognisance of the Secretary of State’s remarks on Tuesday that we must use the available runway capacity. We have to hang on to Manston. If we can do that and use the capacity of our regional airports, we can stem the flow of business to other countries and bridge the gap, but that gap will be a large one.

I support the proposal for Heathrow. I think it is necessary, although I suspect that in fairly short order we may find that we need another runway at Gatwick as well as Heathrow, not instead of. In the interim, we have to make the best use of what we have, and what we have right on our doorstep and available is Manston airport.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justine Greening (Putney) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I start by paying tribute to the work of the Transport Committee. Having had an interest in this area for many years, I can honestly say that it has delved into the detail behind the proposal more thoroughly than I have seen in the past, and I very much welcome that.

I recognise that what has been said is that there are some conditions that it is yet to be proven can be met in order for the third runway to go ahead. I think that is very much like saying, “Two plus two could potentially equal eight; we haven’t worked out how that will ever be possible, but let’s suspend reality for long enough to be able not to have to take a decision that confronts facts.”

We have a long-standing issue in my constituency of Putney, Roehampton and Southfields, similar to those in the constituencies of many hon. Members who will contribute to this debate today, of noise in particular, and night-time noise especially. The proposed loss of respite—it is already for only half the day and will go down to just a third—will really damage my local community’s quality of life. This is not some minor thing to be disposed of. My constituents, like many other Londoners, are those who head in on the tube every day to keep this city going; to be in those roles that make this a capital city that generates taxation receipts that help the rest of the country, as well as Londoners, with the public services we all rely on.

Our environmental challenges are much more than noise. Air pollution has become a serious issue in London in recent years. Putney High Street is one of the worst offenders for air pollution. In the 21st century, my community is concerned about the air that we breathe; we have no choice about that when we come out of our doors. Many communities living more immediately around Heathrow and in the M4 vicinity find themselves in a similarly impossible situation, and they rely on government at local level, City Hall level and national level to fix that.

I could make a very long speech but I am going to try to keep it short, in order to demonstrate how utterly bankrupt this proposal is in practice. I yet wait for people to present me with facts that prove that somehow this is a good idea. Even the updated appraisal analysis released by the Department for Transport earlier this week shows that in the long run Gatwick is a better, higher net public value proposal than Heathrow, and it is lower risk. It takes some kind of perverse logic to pick the lower value, higher risk project that is double the cost. I do not understand the logic. When I was a Minister, I always tried to rely on an evidence base, but I simply have never found the evidence to back up Heathrow expansion. Spurious, high-level, strategic points are always made, which fall apart when we get into the detail.

We keep hearing about extra capacity. That fundamentally misses the point that there are diseconomies of scale in building a third runway. Heathrow is already the most expensive airport in the world. For an airport where a third runway would basically double its capacity, the problem of average runway cost gets worse. That is precisely why we are seeing many of our regional links and emerging market links under pressure. Heathrow airport used to have a direct link to Dar es Salaam in Tanzania—it does not any more. We used to have a direct link to Lusaka—we do not any more. That is because those slots are always worth more to companies that want to fly to New York. The same holds for our regional airports, which have seen their slots under pressure. My point is that that would get worse when the next runway to be built is even more expensive and puts pressure all over again on the routes where it is worst.

[Adam Afriyie]

My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case. She keeps referred to a “third runway,” but it strikes me that actually what Heathrow will be building is half a runway, because it will not operate at night—unless of course the Government breach their original commitment to have no night flights. Not only will it be expensive, but it will be only half a runway, and those costs will be passed on to the passengers and the airlines, who will not want to fly there.

[Justine Greening]

My understanding, when I looked at the detail previously, was that the runway, because it is inevitably being shoehorned into a small site—even the Government response rules out a fourth runway—cannot actually take the biggest category planes. If that became the mode of transport of the future, they would not be able to use that third runway.

I have real concerns about this project. Heathrow’s plan for a third runway has been knocking around for 20-plus years, which tells us everything we need to know about it. It is a 20th century strategy that has never been reassessed, even though, as the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) pointed out, we are now in the 21st century. The Dreamliner point-to-point will be the aviation transport model of the future, combined with, dare I say it, the entry of low-cost carriers into that market, which will want to fly out of low-cost airports, not the most expensive airport in the world—airports that are close to people at a regional level, to provide connectivity on their doorstep, not an airport that is hundreds of miles from where people live, for example where I grew up just outside Sheffield in south Yorkshire. Why should people in those communities have to travel all the way to London to take advantage of the connections that in the 21st century our country ought to be able to have from other airports?

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. Thank you for your generosity in allowing me to speak even though I arrived a couple of minutes later than I should have done at the beginning.

I feel impassioned about this issue, however, in defence not only of my constituents—whom of course I shall defend to the death—but of our national interest. The third runway is not in our national interest, and I shall make a few points about why.

I thank the Chair of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), for a fantastic report—I mean that, from the bottom of my heart. It has the statistics we require, the firm and clear analysis of the Government’s position and the national policy statement, and the supporting data necessary to make an informed judgment. I therefore thank the Chair and the Committee overall.

There are many reasons for the third runway not being in the national interest, but I shall mention three or four key ones. First, commissioning a scheme that creates the most expensive airport in the world at which planes can land is not in our national interest—it does not lead to greater competition, but to more business being driven elsewhere across Europe and the world. The idea that landing fees will rise, and that that is somehow a great benefit to our country, is completely misplaced. It is a naive thought and does not come from a business perspective.

[David Hanson in the Chair]

The second issue is the viability of Heathrow to finance the scheme in the first place. I would not say that Heathrow Airport Ltd is in difficulty today—I would not wish to cast aspersions on it or its pretty decent profits—but if we look at its financials, the gearing ratio in particular, it is already sitting at about 87%. That is quite worrying. We were deeply disturbed when Thames Water was at, I think, 81%—we got very concerned about it. NATS was restricted by the CAA to just 65% gearing, but in the expansion scheme the Government are suggesting that somehow Heathrow should go all the way to about 91% gearing. That is a bizarre amount of pressure from the Government to create an unstable and financially unviable company or scheme.

That leads me to another point. We all sit here thinking, “Of course Heathrow really wants to develop this runway”—I am sure that is what the Department for Transport has thought all the way through and what lots of Members present think: that it really wants to develop the third runway. However, let me cast a note of doubt on that. Think of the obstacles, the huge legal challenges and the continuing political uncertainty. Heathrow will have to conduct the biggest waste clearance project in the history of Britain, other than after the second world war. That could cost £1 billion. It has to remove the energy-from-waste plant—or buy it, shut it down or do something with it—so that is another £1 billion. When Heathrow goes to its shareholders and investors and says, “We’d quite like about £20 billion to create half a runway, where you can only fly during the day but not at night, and we haven’t got clarity on how the slots will work or be allocated,” it is incredibly unlikely that those shareholders will stump up the money. Capital makes a choice about where it is deployed.

Is Heathrow Airport Ltd serious about building a third runway? I really question whether it is. If it gets the Secretary of State and the Government—a Conservative Government—to support a third runway, it shuts out the competition from other runways around the United Kingdom. Gatwick will not be able to develop its runway and everybody else will be left with uncertainty. There will be no further runway developments if Heathrow is given the go-ahead. If it is given the go-ahead, it may find reasons why it is not possible to raise the finance, do a waste clearance or meet the air quality legislation. Heathrow will be chuckling, because, if it does not build the runway and no one else can built a runway, it basically will have shut down expansion for the next 10 to 15 years. Guess what? Its landing fees will begin to rise, because there will be a capacity issue.

[Justine Greening]

It is even better than that. If Heathrow happens to end up incurring any costs, it has a ready-made legal case to claim them back from the Government. All the risks have been mitigated for this private sector company.

[Adam Afriyie]

My right hon. Friend is spot on, as ever. She made that point very clearly in the urgent question today and in the point of order yesterday. I support all her comments in both cases. What on earth is a Conservative Government doing underwriting a private business that is wholly owned by overseas shareholders anyway, on the basis that somehow that is in our national interest, when in fact it is completely against our comparative advantage in the airline sector?

Hon. Members from Scotland, Ireland or the regions may think, “This is a marvellous scheme, because we will have lots more routes open to us. Heathrow has been up to have a chat with us and a cup of coffee and brought us lovely chocolate biscuits and promised all sorts of goodies”—[Interruption.] Not chocolate biscuits; okay. Just look at the promises that Heathrow made before. I will not go through them now, but not one of those promises was ever met, even when it came down to the number of people who would be employed at the airport or the number of apprentices. Quite frankly, if I were Scottish or Northern Irish, I would not trust Heathrow as far as I could throw it. We have nothing in writing and nothing that is legally binding—we have less than was ever given for the fourth terminal or all sorts of other things—so I would be very cautious. Of course, hon. Members may be happy to march through the Lobby to support a Conservative Government—I can understand that.

The graph on page 31 of the report is quite telling about noise. We are talking about 323,000 people who will be hearing 51 dB of noise. They will not have heard that noise before, and yet they do not know who they are. Heathrow came to a meeting in my constituency in Ascot. It was roundly trashed all through the meeting, yet most of the people in the room were there because they were a bit annoyed about the existing noise, and they were not even under the flight path. They did not realise that potentially they will be under the flight path. How on earth can the decision be made when the people affected do not know that they will be affected? It is the wrong way round.

The promises are not worth anything, particularly when it comes to the slots, and I would be very cautious about believing them. If the Government give Heathrow permission to build the runway—I really do not understand their enthusiasm for committing to a single, private sector company that virtually holds a monopoly anyway; it is bizarre behaviour in terms of market economics—what will they do if Heathrow does not then build the runway? Is there a penalty clause for Heathrow? Will we charge it several billion pounds for pretending to want to do something that it then does not complete?

I notice that the recommendation for the Lakeside Energy from Waste plant, which is in my constituency, was the only one that the Government did not accept, giving just a single sentence—“Well, we don’t believe it’s a nationally significant venture.” Will the Minister publish the data on which that decision was based? The Lakeside Energy from Waste plant processes 40% of the hazardous waste in this country and is of enormous strategic importance, so I am surprised that no data was available for the public to see the basis on which the decision was made.

At what point will the Government back away from supporting a third runway at Heathrow? If it becomes clear that the required noise levels cannot be reached, will the Government back away and change their mind? If it becomes clear that the existing air quality legislation cannot be complied with, will they back away? If so, how will they change that decision? If it turns out that the Lakeside Energy from Waste plant will be shut down, causing a regional and possibly national issue, at what point will the Government change their mind?

I am cognisant that if the Government change their mind, possibly beyond the next 17 or 18 days, that may open up an enormous liability for the taxpayer, if Heathrow has been incurring costs from the moment that the national policy statement was published. Will the Minister explain how the Government allowed that clause, which applies only to the Heathrow proposal, not the Gatwick or other proposals, and which contains the very strange proposal to underwrite the cost incurred, whether or not the scheme goes ahead?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown]

I agree with the call for independence, and it was great to hear the right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) giving advice on what an independent Scotland would look like. However, even if Scotland becomes independent, we can still have the same connectivity, as that is separate from being independent. We want to be an independent country with connectivity all over the world. However, the truth of the matter is that, with regard to the expansion of Scottish airports, many of the chief executives of Scottish airports I have spoken to want Heathrow expansion. Truth be told, they would accept Gatwick expansion, but they all say that they need that extra connectivity into the main London airport. That is the reality; it is not a factor of independence. In an ideal world we would have a major international hub in Scotland, but we do not have the critical mass.

People either support Heathrow expansion, support it with a “but”, or outright oppose it. Those who oppose it are more likely to be here on a Thursday afternoon to make their contributions heard. It has been a really good debate. Every Member, no matter their viewpoint, has complimented the excellent work done by the Transport Committee. It has published an excellent report, and I must pay tribute to the Committee’s Chair for the thorough way in which she presented it.

I am pleased that a briefing was provided for MPs. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend, but the briefing notes were excellent, giving a concise summary of some of the issues that still need to be teased out. It will be good to hear the Minister’s response. Like others, I pay tribute to the work the Clerks have done. Although I have not been involved, I know how the Clerks work, and it is great to see the report and information presented concisely.

The Committee Chair highlighted fairly that this issue is not just about connectivity; it is also about the individual people who will be affected. I am conscious that I am a Scottish MP who will be asked to vote on a decision that affects people who are not my constituents. I accept that and understand that some local people affected might be a wee bit angry about that, but unfortunately the reality of a major infrastructure project is that some people will be affected. We must look at the pros and cons, and these people should be adequately compensated and looked after. That is the flipside of a dynamic—other MPs are now advising me as a SNP and Scottish MP on what view I should take—so it works both ways.

The Committee Chair also importantly outlined the risks of inaction—decisions not taken and no further expansion of a hub airport—in terms of the potential loss of business to other European airports. She and others highlighted the risk of the project not being delivered in Heathrow’s timescale by 2026. A pertinent point is that it could be built by 2026 and operating at full capacity by 2028—it seems counter-intuitive that it could be at full capacity just two years after its projected opening. That suggests that it is not a forward-thinking business plan. It would be good to hear comments on that.

The Chair and other Members highlighted surface access issues, particularly road traffic, the required air quality updates and the fact that there are openings for legal challenges. Again, the Minister’s response must cover that in detail. The Chair concluded by saying that the Committee’s support is conditional. It clearly has yet to meet to discuss further the Government’s response, but it is a fair comment that the report must surely have helped other Members decide how they will vote when the time comes to make this big decision. I again pay tribute to the Committee for the work it has done.

I congratulate the hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) on his 35 years in Parliament. He highlighted the success of and threats from competing airports. He touched on the personal aspect of understanding how Heathrow can affect constituents but still laid out his support for the plan. I commend him for shoehorning in a connection to Manston airport and for suggesting that it could be used as a stopgap for freight transport.

We then heard from the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), who has been campaigning against Heathrow expansion for a long time. I respect her view. She correctly highlighted flightpath concerns, and I agree that there should be more transparency on flightpaths so that people fully understand the implications. She also highlighted issues about other traffic movements.

The right hon. Member for Putney has been dogged on this issue. I commend her for securing an urgent question today. She highlighted what she sees as the financial considerations and risk to the Government in having to underwrite the project. We need further clarity. I am well aware that the Government say that there is no financial risk involved because it will be fully by the private sector, but we need absolute clarity on that. She touched on massive concerns for Scotland relating to infrastructure and growth. I welcome her conversion to Scottish independence. I appreciate what she said about Transport for London’s commitments to surface expansion potentially drawing away further investment, but the reality is that Transport for London has a different borrowing model, so that will not directly affect infrastructure spend in Scotland. That is a bit of a red herring, to be honest.

The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), having analysed this and being a member of the Transport Committee, was another “Yes, but.” He highlighted the real importance of western rail access not just for Heathrow, but for wider western connectivity. It seems that that project should have gone ahead sooner rather than later.

The hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) came at this from the national interest approach. He made the argument that it is not in the national interests, and as a Tory he argued about the financial implications. Interestingly—this is almost a conspiracy theory—he believes that Heathrow is not going to develop and that this is just a mechanism to control competition. Depending on what happens with the vote and how we go forward, we will see whether those chickens come home to roost, but I suggest that Heathrow seems to have spent a lot of money and effort so far, and to do so for a scheme it does not intend to progress with would be quite surprising.

[Adam Afriyie]

In terms of the financial interest and the money that has been spent so far, I would say that it would be a pretty wise investment to spend several tens of millions if it looked as though Heathrow could increase its landing fees, increase its take and stop the competition growing for a period of 10, 20 or 30 years. That is a wise investment on its part.

[Alan Brown]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point that there is a financial benefit to spending the money if it eliminates the competition, but clearly if Heathrow stymies routes and development going forward, it opens up some of the other opportunities that at the moment we are saying do not exist. I am not sure it would be in its long-term interests to be able to do that.

The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) said that this debate has cheered him up. I presume that is because quite a few people spoke in opposition—I am not sure that I will cheer him up as I continue. He highlighted concerns about flightpath and cost. As a flippant aside, I must commend him for the coherent speech he has made from the scribbles he makes on his paper. I do not know how he manages to do that, and I commend him for it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Adam Afriyie Excerpts

Thursday 24th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

10. What estimate he has made of the cost to the public purse of the construction and operation of a third runway at Heathrow.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)]

The Government have always been clear that any scheme for additional airport capacity should be financed by the private sector. The Airports Commission concluded that this was a viable way forward. As set out in the revised draft airports national policy statement, independent financial advisers have undertaken further work and agreed that expansion of Heathrow can be carried out without public finance.

[Adam Afriyie]

I thank the Secretary of State for the answer. The report by the Select Committee on Transport on the airports national policy statement said that the Lakeside Energy from Waste plant should be treated

“with equivalent recognition as the Immigration Removal Centres and that the replacement of its facilities be accounted for in the DCO process.”

Will the Secretary of State confirm that his Department has assessed any infrastructure upgrade needed, such as that to roads and powerlines, to accommodate the relocation, and will those costs be met by the taxpayer?

[Chris Grayling]

First, I extend my thanks to the Select Committee, which has produced a thoughtful report. We will be responding to the report in detail very shortly; indeed, my officials are speaking to the Chair of the Committee to make sure she is fully up to speed with how we are handling all this.

Of course it is essential that appropriate provision is made for the energy from waste plant, and I think that provision should be funded by the airport as part of its work. I do not see why the taxpayer should bear the cost. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) that the plant and other facilities, and the communities around the airport, are very much on my Department’s mind as we take these matters forward.

Oral Answers to Questions

Adam Afriyie Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

11. What plans his Department has to reduce the number of people affected by aircraft noise near Heathrow airport.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)]

The Government set noise controls at Heathrow airport, including total noise limits and aircraft movement limits for night flights. These controls, in conjunction with stricter aircraft noise standards negotiated by the UK at the international level, have resulted in a long-term reduction in the number of people affected by aircraft noise near the airport.

[Chris Grayling]

I have been in the hon. Lady’s constituency on many occasions and heard the noise there, and I am very pleased that, over the last 20 years, we have seen a steady reduction in aircraft noise. That is expected to continue as a new generation of aircraft appear in greater numbers. The projections show that, as we enter the 2030s with that change in aircraft fleet, we do not expect an overall noise impact on people around the airport. Nor do we expect an increase in the number of people within the 54 dB bracket, precisely because a new generation of lower-noise aircraft—they will also be lower-emission and lower-fuel consuming aircraft—will mean a quieter airport generally.

[Adam Afriyie]

The aviation national policy statement states that about 93,000 more people will be significantly affected by noise if the third runway goes ahead, yet Civil Aviation Authority figures indicate that more than 2 million people will be affected. Will the Government acknowledge that vast disparity in numbers, and will they update the aviation national policy statement?

[Chris Grayling]

Before the aviation national policy statement is brought to the House, it will be updated off the back of work done by the Transport Committee and the public consultations that have taken place—it will be a refreshed document when it comes before the House. The impact of noise on residents around Heathrow depends on an assessment of the rate of arrival of that new generation of aircraft. As we get into the 2030s, we expect no overall increase in the number of people in the 54 dB noise barrier because of the arrival of those new aircraft. There may be a short period in the mid-2020s when there is a small increase, depending on the airport’s rate of growth and the development of the aircraft fleet, but any such increase will be a short-term one.