Birmingham Airport (Flight Path Changes)

Debate between Mark Garnier and Caroline Spelman

Monday 2nd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)]

It is amazing what an Adjournment debate in Parliament can achieve. On Friday, I had a call from the chief executive of Birmingham airport telling me about some significant changes to the plans for new flight paths, but I shall say more on that in due course. The extension of the runway at the airport has necessitated changes to the flight paths under the airspace change proposal.

Birmingham airport has been trialling options for two new flight paths, known as option 5 and option 6, since May last year. On Friday, the airport announced that when the trial concludes on 13 February, a modified version of option 6 will be implemented, to include features of the original noise preferential route. I am glad that the airport has come up with an option that risks the least noise nuisance, although we must ensure that there is a trial period to test the modified route, along with continuous work to improve further the airport services, taking into consideration the nearby communities. I was particularly pleased that the chief executive stated that the airport wished to mimic as closely as possible “the old Hampton turn”, referring to a manoeuvre that minimised the impact of air traffic on the nearby village of Hampton-in-Arden.

However, the overall process of undertaking the flight path trials has been poor, with long-running problems. Back in July last year, I presented a petition here on the Floor of the House that raised my constituents’ concerns about the trials, which I asked the Department to review. There have been many inadequacies in the trials, including aircraft failing to stick to routes correctly and the repeated postponing of the option 6 trial. The local community feels it has not been listened to, particularly in the rejection of its proposal for an option 6a, an alternative flight path that would have minimised noise nuisance. It made detailed submissions to Birmingham airport, highlighting how a departure route that included a turn at altitude could closely replicate the existing noise preferential route and accommodate the extended runway. That option gained a great deal of community support but was rejected by Birmingham airport without any meaningful qualification.

The Civil Aviation Authority was aware of the alternative option that the community came up with but could not force the airport to trial it. After the initial consultation, options 5 and 6 were scheduled for trialling on alternative months beginning in May 2014. The trials were initially intended to last around seven months.

Under option 5, the aircraft would have continued straight ahead on take-off, but that would have affected the residents of Balsall common quite badly. Under option 6, the aircraft were to make a 20 degree turn to the right, once 2.2 nautical miles from the end of the extended runway, but that option directly overflies the village of Barston, with obvious negative consequences for residents there.

Until Friday’s announcement, option 5 had been Birmingham airport’s preferred option. Before the changes to the flight path, aircraft used to turn away from Hampton-in-Arden at a specific distance from the end of the runway on the noise preferential route—the so-called Hampton turn. Since the runway extension of 450 metres, the airport has said that the Hampton turn could not be replicated; that a turn at a specified distance must be further than 2.2 nautical miles away from the runway because of so-called obstacles. However, when I asked the airport what those obstacles were, it provided me with a list of incomprehensible co-ordinates, and I was none the clearer.

In the initial planning application stage for the runway extension, local councillors probed very heavily whether the Hampton turn could be maintained if the extension took place. They were assured that it would form part of the evaluation of options under the separate consultation process for the trials.

The airport's latest announcement of a modified version of option 6 should replicate the Hampton turn more closely, and I welcome this indication that the airport is listening to the concerns of the community and hope that progress will continue to be made.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making a powerful speech and defending the quality of life for her constituents who are affected by Birmingham airport. Many of us agree that expansion of Birmingham airport could benefit the area, so it is vital that the airport has a better working relationship with the community to ensure that its views are heard. We welcome expansion of Birmingham airport, but it must be acceptable to her constituents and not impact on their quality of life.

[Mrs Spelman]

I could not have put the case better myself. My hon. Friend is quite right that the airport enjoyed previously a really good relationship with the surrounding community. It is landlocked on three sides by residential accommodation, and quite dense accommodation at the northerly end of the runway. It is so disappointing that the difficulty with these trials has damaged public trust. The most important thing now is to restore that trust.

I emphasise here that I am not asking the Minister to comment on the specifics of options 5 or 6, because, as ever, a balance needs to be struck—what is beneficial for one community may not be beneficial for another, and I have remained strictly neutral between the two. The aim of the flight path trials has been to measure the actual impact of aircraft noise on relative communities—in Barston and Balsall common—rather than relying on theoretical modelling. That information is being used in submissions to the Civil Aviation Authority and it has informed the airport’s decision.

I want to sketch briefly the timeline of the trials and to highlight some of the issues. The trial of option 5 commenced on 1 May 2014. For technical reasons, it proved very difficult for some aircraft to stick accurately to the initially proposed route for option 6, with accuracy as low as 49% on the northbound turn, so it had to be withdrawn in June. I wonder whether some of the difficulty with trialling the options could have been avoided with better simulation so that they got it right the first time round.

Once option 6 had been revised, the trials were rescheduled to 13 November, which was, of course, during the winter flight schedule, when fewer aircraft come in and out of the airport. Although the capacity of winter and summer should not affect the ability to check the range of noise from different types of aircraft, noise monitoring does not measure the effect of repeated disturbance or its cumulative effect.

There were further problems with the programming of area navigation aircraft, which meant that the trial of option 6 did not actually begin in November, as scheduled—or rescheduled. One of the flight coding companies, which airlines employ to keep them up to date with correct flight paths, had not provided airlines with the correct information for the revised option 6. The problem was subsequently corrected, but it was not until 11 December that the trial of option 6 commenced fully.

Although I accept that that may not have been the airport’s fault, the cumulative effect of repeated mistakes calls into question the validity of the trials, and it has been frustrating and damaging to public trust. If you will forgive the pun, Mr Deputy Speaker, it rather feels like the airport has adopted a trial-and-error approach to the flight path trials. As I have said, following a meeting between the CAA and Birmingham airport last week, the airport intends to continue using a modified version of option 6 once the trials have finished.

Another issue is that the local communities feel they have not been adequately listened to. It did not help that the airport announced that it would review the membership of the airport consultative committee, which is made up of local representatives, just before the trial. The airport proposed to remove the residents associations, parish councils and civic societies from the main committee and place them in a sub-committee, with only the chair of the sub-committee remaining on the revised airport consultative committee to represent the views of the community. That sidelined the organisations that best served the community’s views. Indeed, as the elected Member of Parliament, I was allowed to attend only as an observer.

As a result of pressure from the council leader, however, the airport has agreed to maintain the groups on the airport consultative committee at least while the trials continue. The airport has also taken other steps to improve community dialogue, including by committing to producing community updates throughout the process.

The local community was supported throughout by Solihull council, which passed a motion in October stating:

“This Council supports fair flight paths for take-off and arrival of aircraft at Birmingham Airport to minimise the impact of aircraft noise on communities. We further welcome the involvement of community representatives both at the Airspace Change Forum while trials continue and through their continuing contribution to the work of the Airport Consultative Committee.”

It was clear that the council did not favour one option over the other.

The debate so far has centred on communities affected by changes to flight paths from runway 15, which is for southbound departures. However, runway 33 departures—which are to the north from Birmingham—have also changed, and they make up 60% of flights. Changes to runway 33 departures have affected a number of my constituents in areas including Castle Bromwich and Marston Green. Due to the extension to the runway, aircraft are rotating earlier and therefore homes in the village are suffering more noise as aircraft are above ground level earlier on take off and make a departure on a much lower angle. However, I was encouraged to hear the airport chief executive say on Friday that, there too, modifications have been made to option 6, which may help to alleviate that noise nuisance.

In summary, the process of trialling new routes has been poorly done. The impact of the flight path trials has been increased noise pollution and a breakdown in the previously positive relationship between the local community and the airport. I welcome the news that the airport has agreed to consider a modified option 6, but we must ensure that there is a trial period to test the modified route and continuous work further to improve airport services, with consideration given to nearby communities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) said, the airport is an important attribute and asset of regional and indeed national significance to our country. However, the management of the airport and the adjustments to its expansion in future need to be carried out hand in hand with the community most directly affected by it, and it is important that the re-engagement with the community rebuilds public trust.

Women’s Contribution to the Economy

Debate between Mark Garnier and Caroline Spelman

Thursday 6th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Spelman]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that maths is an A-level that is prized by all employers, and both men and women who are good at maths have good career prospects; there is no difference between men and women in that respect.

There was a lively event on Monday in the House of Commons, where MPs were invited to come and mentor, for 15 minutes at a time, groups of secondary school students who had come in from different London boroughs. It was interesting that, even then, I picked up among these school students that the girls did not fully appreciate the passport that is a maths A-level. I would say to them, “If you’re good at it, go for it!”

Alongside these gender disparities across economic sectors, there are, of course, income differences, which are a consequence of occupational differences in income. Men are far more likely to be in professional occupations associated with higher pay, for example software development, while more women are found in lower- paid professional occupations, including those in the caring professions. According to the 2012 annual survey of hours and earnings, programmers and software development professionals earned on average more than £20 per hour—£20.02, to be precise—excluding overtime. By comparison, nurses earned on average £16.61 per hour, according to the survey. We might reflect on that kind of disparity. The ONS report from September 2013 showed that men make up the majority of workers in the top 10% of earners among all employees.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does she share my concern about industries such as banking? Big high street banks are making great claims that they are introducing a tremendous amount of gender equality, yet below the figures there is a tremendous amount of gender imbalance; it tends to be women who have the lower-paid jobs in the banks and men who have the more senior and higher-paid jobs. That is despite the fact that there is an advantage in having women in certain areas, such as dealing rooms, where they can “de-testosterone” and therefore de-risk some of these organisations.

[Mrs Spelman]

Testosterone is far too racy a subject to start talking about mid-afternoon on a Thursday. Actually, my hon. Friend makes a good point. I applaud moves such as the one by the chief executive of Barclays, who is introducing quotas for women within his company, so that women get a really good opportunity to be represented in the higher-paid echelons of the banking business. I wish that we saw more of that.