Airport Expansion

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mike Kane]

What a breath of fresh air my hon. Friend was in his by-election, and he is now on these Benches, campaigning for his airport in Blackpool. I am really looking forward to visiting the airport and to my night out there—I hope that will come with fish and chips on the prom, as well.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

The expansion of Heathrow feels a bit like the Schrödinger’s cat of expansion at the moment—it is both happening and not happening, depending on what one’s perspective is today. I realise that the Minister will not be tempted to comment on Gatwick either, as it is a live DCO process. Given that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), and the Minister have both asserted that growth is an inevitable consequence of airport expansion, can I ask the Minister what evidence he has to support that assertion?

[Mike Kane]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question, but I do not think I will take any lectures from Liberal Democrat Members about sitting on the fence. Theirs is the politics of licking their finger, putting it in the air to see which way the wind is blowing, and then putting it in a leaflet. There is no development consent order for Heathrow yet. I am sure the hon. Lady will have her opportunity to raise her concerns at a later date in this place.

Road Safety: Young Drivers

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Desmond, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) on securing this really important debate. I also thank Crystal for sharing her heartbreaking testimony.

I am now old enough to have been driving for 30 years and during the debate I have been reflecting on the joy I felt when I passed my driving test, aged 17. I grew up in Gloucestershire, so to pass my test and be able to travel around the county, meeting friends in Gloucester, Stroud and Tewkesbury, truly was a liberation. How lucky I was. However, two of my classmates, Paul Torrington and Lee Mortimer, were far less lucky than me. A few years after leaving school both were killed, in separate road traffic accidents, and I also reflect today on the opportunities I have had in the past 30 years that they have missed out on.

Between 2004 and 2023, fatalities involving younger drivers decreased by 60%—a true testament to the effectiveness of education, awareness-raising and the tireless efforts of campaigners. Despite that improvement, however, last year road traffic accidents still claimed the lives of 1,624 people across the UK, so there is clearly still work to do. As we have already heard, young drivers—especially young men—aged between 17 and 25 are over-represented in such statistics.

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

May I express my sadness and join others in commemorating constituents lost? I would like to name Sammy Phillips and Lewis Moghul, who died in Bix, just metres from where I lived at the time. As a father, I can express sympathy, but I can never really, truly understand such pain. Other Members have spoken of the particular hazards that drivers face on rural roads, including the darkness, narrowness, higher speed limits and other dangers. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful to look specifically at the dangers on rural roads?

[Alison Bennett]

I absolutely agree that, as we have heard from a number of Members this morning, the risks of rural roads are particularly profound.

We need to find ways to protect people on rural roads and all other people who share those roads with drivers, and today we have had the chance to reflect on the tragic deaths of Hugo, Harvey, Wilf and Jevon. We are also here to remember every other one of those 1,625 people who lost their lives on British roads last year and the countless more in years gone by.

In my own constituency of Mid Sussex, I recently met Marie, who lost her 22-year-old son in December 2014 to a road traffic accident. He was a backseat passenger in a car being driven by a newly qualified driver, who was 21. He was driving in excess of 100 mph on a country lane when he lost control. The car landed on its roof, and the two passengers in the back lost their lives. Marie’s son left behind two young boys; one was eight months old at the time, and the other was five years old. As we have heard, we can and must learn from these terrible events.

With our remarkable progress in reducing road fatalities over the past few decades, the UK now boasts one of the lowest road death rates per 1 million people in Europe. However, every death is one too many, and we must use this improvement as inspiration that better is possible and that change saves lives, not as a reason to sit on our laurels and say, “Job well done.” My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I are firm in our belief that we need the Government to publish a road safety strategy without delay. Such strategies have previously delivered significant improvements in road safety. For instance, the Road Safety Observatory has noted a significant decline in road fatalities since the 1990s thanks to the 2000 road safety strategy, which delivered campaigns, such as THINK!, infrastructure improvements and more rigorous driving tests.

An updated strategy would surely be transformative in further reducing accidents and saving lives. Crucially, it would need to focus heavily on rural areas, where 60% of fatal collisions occur. We have seen success with the introduction of measures such as stricter drink-driving laws, seatbelt legislation and tougher driving tests, but we absolutely must improve public transport options to reduce our reliance on cars.

Young people, particularly those in rural areas, should not have to rely on dangerous journeys to get to work or education or to see friends, yet the sharp decline in bus services under the previous Government coupled with rising fares has made it harder for many young people to get around safely. In West Sussex, for example, we have seen a nearly 20% drop in available passenger journeys since 2015. Young people are simply so much more likely to end up driving when there are no decent alternatives. We can solve that by maintaining the £2 cap on bus fares, reopening smaller train stations and offering on-demand services where conventional buses are not viable.

Rural roads would also benefit greatly from better infrastructure, such as the installation of more overtaking lanes, as the RSO has suggested. As well as broader infrastructure strategies, we must embrace new ideas. One of the standout proposals today is Harvey’s hammer, which could be a game changer in saving lives and creating a more safety-conscious culture, especially among young drivers. New technology, coupled with better enforcement of speed limits, education programmes for all road users and investment in safer roads and vehicles, all of which have a proven track record of success, provide hope that we can do so much more in the years to come.

My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have long championed road safety measures, and we will continue to do so. Marie, her son’s young family and the families of Hugo, Harvey, Wilf and Jevon are in our hearts as we strive for effective change. The Government must support measures to make these tragedies a rarity and support proposals such as Harvey’s hammer, which has the potential to save lives when these terrible events take place.

As hon. Members have set out today, we know that young people face disproportionate risks on the roads, but they should not be punished for it. Instead, we must give them the tools to stay safe. Let us focus on improving public infrastructure, enforcing road safety rules and providing better public transport options, using a new road safety strategy. We owe it to the memory of all young people whose lives have been cut short, to their families, and to all who care about saving innocent lives.

Gatwick Airspace Modernisation Review

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[John Milne]

Indeed, as I will come on to, noise is the primary issue at stake here. Gatwick Airport Ltd, referred to as GAL, is a private company. As the operator at Gatwick, it has been tasked with masterminding the airspace review process. It is subject to oversight from a public body, the Civil Aviation Authority. Similarly, Heathrow and other airports across the country are carrying out their own strategy implementation consultation processes for their own areas. The assumption is that each airport knows its own patch better than anyone else, so they are the best qualified to do the job. However, in the case of Gatwick, serious concerns have been raised. Now that we have reached stage three, which is the public consultation phase, many of my constituents and parish councils are concerned. They are worried about the impacts the proposals will have on public health, the objectivity of the process itself and whether the three shortlisted choices actually represent any kind of choice at all.

The proposed changes all involve using a new, previously not overflown flight path. Currently, planes taking off to the west climb for about 6k out before turning south to the coast. But the new route makes a much earlier turn south at about 2k out. The net effect of this change is to separate the western and southern route paths much earlier than currently, which enables a reduction in the interval between flights from two minutes down to 60 seconds. That in turn would enable the airport operator to build significantly more take-off slots into their schedules. The value of that increase in capacity is enormous, potentially hundreds of millions of pounds over the long term.

Why should the change in flight path matter so much to my constituents? Because the sharper turns mean that thousands of flights a year will henceforth directly overfly the villages of Rusper, Warnham and Slinfold at a relatively low height, radically increasing noise pollution, loss of sleep and other negatives.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

As the Member for Mid Sussex, I have been concerned for some time about potential expansion at Gatwick airport, in particular bringing the emergency runway into commercial use. Does my hon. Friend agree that should the decision be approved, the problems he outlines will only be exacerbated?

[John Milne]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Indeed, there is a suspicion that part of the motive behind this is to enable an expansion, which has not been permitted yet.

In this new design, flights would be concentrated over a much narrower band of countryside. The introduction of satellite-based navigation, which is another part of the modernisation process, also has the effect of pushing flights along the same narrow route. GAL started out its review with hundreds of possible designs, but for the public consultation it has narrowed it down to just three. All three make that sharp turn to the south at 2k out. All three add millions to GAL’s potential income. All three create massive noise pollution for Rusper, Warnham and Slinfold. They are not three different options but one and the same.

Is it credible that by fluke all three have exactly the same financial benefit to GAL? It is no wonder that many residents have come to suspect that profit and share price is being put before people’s interests. The absence of an independent member in the design process leaves the outcome open to a perception of bias, at the very least. Perhaps the CAA has recognised this risk, because it proposes to set up a new UK-wide airspace change service that would serve to remedy the problem of

“scarce expertise in the industry”.