Civil Aviation Bill

Debate between Alex Cunningham and Phil Wilson

Monday 30th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

Aviation makes a major contribution to the UK economy: the industry makes up £19 billion to £20 billion a year of our gross domestic product and employs 600,000 to 700,000 people. My concern tonight, in the context of this Bill, is the future of regional airports and the connectivity they offer between the regions they serve and the rest of the world.

In 1995, Heathrow served 21 domestic destinations and today it serves only six, only two of which are in England. Durham Tees Valley airport in County Durham, which is in my constituency and has part of its runway in the Stockton North and Stockton South constituencies, was once connected to Heathrow, but in February 2009 British Midland International—bmi—withdrew its service. Durham Tees Valley still has a twice daily flight to Schiphol airport in Amsterdam, and Schiphol and Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris now serve more regional airports in the UK than does Heathrow. I understand that bmi withdrew its slots from Durham Tees Valley to Heathrow as it wanted to use them for more lucrative long-haul flights into the capital, but those slots have yet to be filled. Although it might make sense to have the long-haul flights, there is a problem for connectivity between the regions, economic development and the global economy.

BAA bills Heathrow as our global gateway, but that cannot be true if only two regional airports in England have access to the international links through that airport to the rest of the world. The route to Schiphol from Durham Tees Valley is excellent and serves the Tees valley well.

Let me tell hon. Members something about the Tees valley and why it is so important that we maintain the connectivity between the airport and the rest of the world. It has to do with the size of the industry in the area. The economy of the Tees valley is based on the largest integrated process industrial complex in the UK. It contains industries specialising in petrochemicals, energy, renewable energy, biofuel and steel making. It has the third largest port in the UK and there is also a world-class advanced engineering industry based on the design, construction and maintenance of petrochemical plants, power stations and major infrastructure such as bridges. In addition, the region has the Wilton centre, which is Europe’s largest non-military private sector research centre. The petrochemical industry alone contributes £3.5 billion to the UK economy and 70,000 UK jobs depend on it. On top of that, Hitachi Rail Europe is coming to Newton Aycliffe, which is in my constituency and about 12 miles to the west of the airport. Again, a worldwide industry has been attracted to the region.

Although we have the link to Schiphol, I understand that it does not provide a connection with Australia and that the number of flights that connect to the middle east and north America have reduced in recent years. That is why the routes into Heathrow are so important. As the bmi slots into Heathrow have yet to be filled, I want the Government to consider some kind of public service obligation so that the slots remain reserved for flights from Durham Tees Valley into Heathrow. I have been pressing for that for several years, even before 2010, when Labour was in power. I would like to have the opportunity to discuss the matter with the Minister, in a meeting if possible, to see whether we can make progress. At the moment, there are about three PSOs in the UK: two in Scotland and one in Wales. In Europe, however, there are about 250, and they keep regional airports connected to international hubs.

That proposal is important for Durham Tees Valley airport, especially today. As we know in the north-east, the airport is being put up for sale by Vancouver Airport Services and Peel Airports Ltd.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend and neighbour has proved to be a great champion for our local airport, which, as he said, is up for sale. Does he agree that when considering the future of Durham Tees Valley airport, as well as taking into account all the points he has made, the directors must seriously consider all offers to secure an expert company that is interested in providing the widest range of services at the airport rather than potential owners who are simply interested in serving the interests of shareholders and are not committed to a long-term viable future for the airport?

[Phil Wilson]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Transparency is very important when it comes to the sale and I know that the board is meeting every week at the moment to ensure that everything is out in the open. It is vital that whoever takes over the airport ensures it is there for the benefit of all the region, not just the shareholders.

Five or six years ago, approximately 900,000 passengers a year used the airport, but that figure is now down to 180,000 or 190,000. The largest part of those passenger numbers comes from the KLM flights between Durham Tees Valley and Schiphol. It is important that in the sale of the airport we ensure we get someone who will invest in the facility.

The airport has a proud history. It was originally known as Goosepool airport and then as RAF Middleton St George, and it was an RAF Bomber Command station during world war two. The airfield began its life as Royal Air Force Station Goosepool and in 1941 became RAF Middleton St George. The aerodrome opened as a Bomber Command station in that same year and, after the war, it served various squadrons. In 1964 it was sold and became Teesside International airport and, in 2004, it became Durham Tees Valley airport.

I understand that there are several prospective buyers for the facility at Durham Tees Valley, and I want to make sure that, whatever happens, it remains a commercial airport. If that is not to be the case, I want to make sure that it still has an aviation purpose for the north-east, whether as a general aviation facility, a cargo facility or a commercial operation. It is vital that there is a future for some kind of aviation in the Tees valley in whatever guise, because the business is needed—as I have said, it is a massive industrial complex—the tourism is needed, and investment in the facility by whoever buys it is needed.

I want to see an aviation future for Durham Tees Valley because connectivity is very important to an area with such a huge and internationally important industrial base. It is important to keep a commercial airport, but there is also a great need for the wider aviation facility. There has been criticism of the airport in the local press, but now is not the time for criticising Durham Tees Valley—we should be supporting its sale. I want the airport to have a viable aviation future that will benefit the whole region, as it is an important economic asset. The time for criticism, celebration or both is after the sale period, which I understand will be in the next week or so. In the spirit of the cross-party consensus this Bill has secured, I hope that the cross-party consensus among Tees valley MPs will also continue.

Finally, I should like to ask a question about the Bill. I understand that some of the inspections that the CAA currently undertakes will continue but that their cost will be transferred to regional airports and ultimately, I should think, to the customer. To avoid placing unnecessary burdens on regional airports and customers, will the Minister look at this issue again and let us know in today’s debate whether that is case? In an age in which greater connectivity and globalisation are bringing the world closer together, regional airports and the regions they serve deserve to be part of that economic growth, connectivity and globalisation and the economic wealth they can bring.

Wind Farm Development (Sedgefield)

Debate between Alex Cunningham and Phil Wilson

Wednesday 7th September 2011 Westminster Hall

[Phil Wilson]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. In a moment, I shall be pointing out how much of a role County Durham and Sedgefield residents are playing in combating climate change.

It is the job of each developer to promote their schemes, but because the planning system is run on a first-come, first-served basis there is a rush to the planning authorities, and local people are left feeling under siege and helpless. I shall give an example by detailing the level of interest in and around my constituency by developers. I say “in and around the constituency”, because when my constituents look out of the windows they do not see the boundaries between constituencies; they see pleasant countryside. Indeed, from certain parts of the constituency they can see magnificent views of the North Yorkshire moors and Cleveland hills.

This is the state of play. As I said, 16 wind farms are up and running in County Durham, and another has been permitted but has not yet been built; 67 turbines are generating 126 MW. A further five wind farms are in planning, with a further 10 turbines; and three are in pre-planning with 18 turbines. That is a total of 95 turbines. Then there is the mother of all wind farms, the Isles wind farm proposed by E.ON, which will raise the number of turbines, operational and proposed, to as many as 140.

Within hundreds of metres of the Durham county council border at Sedgefield, three turbines are operational near Elwick. Just to the south, along the A1, a further six have been granted at Red Gap farm. Three turbines have received planning consent at Lambs hill near Stockton, and they directly affect my constituency because of their proximity. In the borough of Darlington, an area that I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mrs Chapman), three are proposed at East and West Newbiggin. Banks Renewables has gone to appeal on a wind farm of 10 turbines at Moor House farm, just to the south of E.ON’s large proposal. The list goes on.

Local people feel inundated and helpless. I am sorry to say that they are resentful of a planning regime that does not seem to listen to them. I accept that not all the proposed wind farms will go ahead. However, the Minister cannot deny that they will have a cumulative impact in County Durham and the Tees valley plain. When I say no to the Isles wind farm, I do so because I know that my constituents in County Durham are doing their bit. Even the developers are starting to concede that point. A representative of Banks Renewables, wind farm developers that have sites in the county, was interviewed by the Teesdale Mercury on 24 August 2011. He said:

“An unfortunate repercussion of County Durham being forward thinking in its approach to renewable energy development is the potential for cumulative impact to occur...The pursuit of several wind farms within the county by competing developers has potential to cause an unacceptable impact upon the landscape.”

He is absolutely right; in my view we are already at that stage.

County Durham’s record on renewable energy is another reason why I believe that we are not being nimbyist in our approach. The county council was the first local authority in England to have a renewable energy strategy; it dates back to 1994. The renewable electricity target for County Durham in the regional spatial strategy—I realise that it does not apply any more—was 82 MW installed capacity by 2010. Since then, about 165 MW of installed capacity of renewable energy development has been permitted in the county. Only 11 MW of that was permitted on appeal—the majority, 154MW, was granted by the council.

A capacity of 165 MW will meet about 55% of County Durham’s household electricity consumption, or 22% of the county’s overall electricity consumption. That is a fantastic record, and one of the best in England. I am sure that the Minister will agree that County Durham is doing its bit, and I hope that he will pay tribute to the county’s record.

County Durham’s 2010 target has been met and exceeded by a substantial margin. The aspiration to double that target by 2020 has already been achieved, and progress is being made towards the more recent national target of 30% by 2020. That has been achieved through a planned approach based on the north-east region’s renewable energy strategy and development capacity studies commissioned and endorsed by local authorities in the region.

The Tees plain was identified as a broad area of least constraint for wind energy development. Its capacity was identified as being between 20 and 25 turbines. It is covered by four local planning authorities—Durham county council, and Stockton, Hartlepool and Darlington borough councils. A development capacity study was carried out by consultants Arup in 2008, when there were a total of 20 operational or permitted turbines in three wind farms. It concluded that there was potential to exceed the level of development anticipated, and that two additional wind farms totalling between nine and 15 turbines might be acceptable.

Since then, two additional wind farms totalling nine turbines have been permitted. The area is therefore at or approaching the capacity identified in the Arup report. Currently, there are planning applications for three additional wind farms and a single turbine development in the area, totalling 13 turbines; and one planning application for 10 turbines is in abeyance. Those applications will be determined against the development plans of the relevant planning authorities, having regard to both the Arup capacity study and the evolving cumulative impact picture as they progress through the system. According to impact assessment studies, the area chosen by E.ON at the Isles—the company has built many wind farms in the area—can cope with only four to six turbines, but E.ON plans between 25 and 45. Durham can meet its targets because we have proved willing to embrace other renewable technologies in the same area. In Chilton, which is in my constituency and north of the Isles, Dalkia has just opened a biomass facility, producing 15 to 17 MW of electricity. Some 24.4 MW of electricity is generated from biomass in the county, 12.7 MW from landfill and 2.1 MW from hydro. County Durham is playing its part. Everyone wants to share the benefits of renewable energy, but we also need to share the burden.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I hope my hon. Friend and my neighbouring MP will forgive me if I go off on a slight tangent. Does he agree that while our constituents are getting the pain of wind farms, they are not getting the benefits? That was perhaps best illustrated this week when EDF awarded all its contracts for a massive wind farm off the Teesside coast to companies abroad, instead of creating jobs in our constituencies for our people who have the skills and facilities with which to build that farm.

[Phil Wilson]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Although the landscape in the area has begun to be reindustrialised, we are not getting any of the benefits.

We are getting energy from other renewable sources such as hydro, landfill, and biomass, and now our constituents are beginning to wonder whether we are all in this together. They look at Hampshire, which is using three times as much energy as Durham but taking only about 4% of it from renewables. Moreover, there is not one on-shore wind farm in the area, despite the fact that it is the county in which the Secretary of State for the Department of Energy and Climate Change has his constituency.

Only five members of the Cabinet have wind farms in their constituency. Some have a lot. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury has 259 in his constituency of Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, but his constituency covers l,911 square miles—almost as many as there are amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill. The Scottish Secretary has 226 turbines in a constituency covering almost 1,500 square miles. The Foreign Secretary, whose constituency is adjacent to mine, has 24 turbines in an area covering 739 square miles. Sedgefield covers 151 square miles. If the developers get their way and all 87 turbines get the go-ahead, we could see one turbine for every 1.7 square miles. Does the Minister not agree that the planning system for such huge structures is chaotic?

North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust

Debate between Alex Cunningham and Phil Wilson

Monday 5th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Alex Cunningham]

Mr Speaker, I agree with the long intervention and the facts laid out by my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris).

In Stockton-on-Tees, just over a quarter of residents live in some of the most deprived areas of England. Early deaths from heart disease and stroke and from cancer are higher than the England average. Inequalities are starkly demonstrated by the fact that a man living in one of the least deprived areas of Stockton can expect to live just over 10 years longer than a man living in one of the most deprived areas.

Since 1997, however, early death rates from heart disease and stroke have fallen markedly and early death rates from cancer have also fallen, albeit more slowly. We have also seen a narrowing in the gap between our area and the rest of the country. Things are improving for my constituents, and my concern is that the coalition’s decision will see a halt to and possibly even a reversal in these positive outcomes. The NHS is too important to be turned into a party political football, however. Those listening to this debate back in the north-east this evening do not want to hear us point scoring. I have heard you say yourself, Mr Speaker, that that is the sort of behaviour that turns people off politics and politicians.

I wholeheartedly welcome the commitment shown by the Prime Minister and his party to the NHS, and I would like to draw the attention of hon. Members to a statement that he made during the election campaign. He said:

“The test of a good society is you look after the elderly, the frail, the vulnerable, the poorest in our society. And that test is even more important in difficult times, when difficult decisions have to be taken, than it is in better times.”

I could not agree more with the Prime Minister’s statement, but I fear that his words are not being followed by his actions. As we all know, it is all too easy to make promises in politics. The real test is whether we stand by our word once the votes have been counted.

During the election campaign, the Conservative party claimed that it was now the party of the NHS. I doubt very much that people who went to the ballot box on 6 May and put a cross next to the name of their Conservative candidate thought that the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) would be authorising the cancellation of a long-awaited new hospital just weeks later. We all acknowledge that cuts have to be made to reduce the deficit, but this is a much needed front-line service, and I will not stand by and let this project disappear without a fight.

Of course, 6 May gave us not a Conservative Government but a Liberal Democrat and Conservative coalition, so I urge Members to refer to the document “The Coalition: our programme for government”, which states:

“We are committed to the continuous improvement of the quality of services to patients.”

Again, I warmly welcome that statement, but I fear that when push comes to shove, it will mean very little to my constituents and those in neighbouring areas. This coalition seems intent on cutting spending without fully realising the human cost of the cuts. This decision is a backward step for the communities that would have been served by the new hospital, and it does not tally with the Prime Minister’s claim that the Conservatives are now the party of the NHS or with the coalition’s document.

Since the announcement on 17 June, I and other Labour Members have met the chair and chief executive of North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust. They are understandably extremely disappointed that, after the many years of hard work creating and fine-tuning the plans for the future of health services in our region, those plans have been sent back to the drawing board. It is not only the foundation trust that is unhappy with the decision: on Saturday 26 June, other Members and I attended a rally in Hartlepool to highlight local opposition to the decision, which grows by the day.

I have also received encouraging support for early-day motion 273, which asks for a review of the coalition’s decision. To date, it has received 42 signatures—regrettably, only from Members on this side of the House. I hope that it will not only be Labour Members arguing this evening that their constituents should not lose out after waiting so long for an agreement on the future of health care in our area.

One of the key questions that I hope the Minister will answer this evening is why this particular project has been scrapped. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury said in his statement to the House that his decision to cut £2 billion of public spending, including on our new hospital, was guided by a principle of fairness. At the moment, we feel as though we have been subject to an arbitrary decision. I have yet to hear any persuasive argument as to why people in the north-east have had their new hospital withdrawn while schemes such as the Royal Liverpool hospital, the Pennine acute hospital and the Epsom and St Helier hospital are going ahead. What advice did the Minister receive from his Department that led to the conclusion that the North Tees and Hartlepool project did not represent value for money, compared with the other projects?

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury told the House on 17 June that our new hospital was

“assessed against a number of other major build projects that were at the same stage of development; those schemes are more urgent.”—[Official Report, 17 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 1051.]

I would appreciate a little more clarity from the Minister about what was meant by that statement, and I request that he publish the criteria used and the detailed comparisons carried out against the project. The North Tees and Hartlepool project was, according to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), the top priority for the NHS. We would like to know why it has slipped down and out of the queue.

In answer to my question on 29 June about the strategy developed by the foundation trust, the Secretary of State for Health did not rule out other ways of making our new hospital happen. I noted that he said it needed to fit his new criteria and that the trust should not ask the Department of Health to meet the whole capital cost of whatever it proposes. Does that mean that some funding could be made available and the balance raised by the trust using its existing powers?

I urge the coalition to work with Members on the Opposition Benches as well as with the foundation trust to look at new and innovative ways of funding the project and ensuring that local people are not left behind. Will the Minister confirm that more time invested in developing a new solution to fund the new hospital will not be a waste of time, and that he and his coalition partners have not set themselves against any new hospital in our part of the country?

If we do not find a solution and build a new hospital, what will happen? The chief executive of the North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust has publicly acknowledged that there is a chance that Hartlepool hospital could close, whether or not a new hospital goes ahead. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright)is extremely anxious about that. We could end up with one hospital. I want it to be a new one.

There is much more at stake than just health care and a new hospital. The location for the hospital was Wynyard park, a 700 acre high-end mixed-use development accommodating residential and business properties.

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on achieving the Adjournment debate. I shall be brief. I expect the point that he intends to make is about added value arising from the project. The business park would have attracted high-value private sector jobs in medical research in an area that needs them. They would have reached the site as a result of the £10 million that would have been introduced into the transport system.

[Alex Cunningham]

Exactly. The new hospital would have kick-started development in the area, creating many thousands of jobs. The owners of Wynyard park believe that the new hospital would have been a considerable incentive for investment by others to develop the type of industries mentioned by my hon. Friend. Most important of all, the coalition’s decision to scrap the new hospital will have a major detrimental effect on continuing the work to close the gap between the unhealthiest and healthiest in our communities.

I am therefore grateful to the Minister, who has agreed to a request from my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) for a meeting to discuss how we can keep our hospital project alive. I look forward to the meeting to discuss the way forward and will listen intently to his response this evening, in the hope that the door to funding is not already firmly closed. At present there are many more questions than answers about the future of acute services in our region. What is the future of health care, of our strategy for a new hospital, and of the organisations, such as the foundation trust, that plan care? There is so much doubt.