High-speed Rail

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Louise Ellman

Thursday 19th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The issue of jobs is extremely important. It is absolutely essential that opportunities are given to UK companies and workers to take advantage of the employment opportunities that will be provided by this major scheme. The Committee has already raised this issue and been told that there will be a road show conducted by HS2 Ltd that will go across the country promoting job opportunities—similar to the way in which action was taken in relation to Crossrail. Following the road show, it is absolutely essential that Ministers become involved and ensure that the promotion of job opportunities is a major part of the scheme.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I welcome the Committee’s continued support for HS2, as I welcome the investment in my constituency in the interchange at Old Oak Common. Would that support not be consolidated if we had certainty on matters, particular the Heathrow link, which the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) mentioned? The Government seem as intent on delaying that decision as they are on pushing the project forward. At the very least, will my hon. Friend endeavour to ensure that the moribund proposal for an estuary airport is withdrawn? We might not agree on the number of runways we want at Heathrow, but if we had certainty that Heathrow would continue to thrive, we could resolve that issue, which would mean certainty on the route of HS2.

[Mrs Ellman]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. I agree about the importance of securing the Heathrow link. I repeat what I have said previously in relation to the possibilities of an estuary airport: the problems in relation to cost, environmental impacts and the need to close Heathrow airport and London City airport are likely to be insuperable barriers to its being pursued further.

Aviation Strategy

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Louise Ellman

Thursday 24th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Ellman]

I am about to address that very point. The situation could be dealt with in three ways: build an entirely new hub airport; link existing airports through high-speed rail to form a split hub; or expand one or more existing airports.

Many of the proposals for a new hub airport would locate it to the east of London in the Thames estuary area. There are significant challenges associated with building such an airport, including the difficulty of designing airspace in an already crowded environment, and the need to mitigate bird strike and to deal with environmental challenges such as future sea-level rises and the risk of flooding. Noise would also become an issue for the many people who inevitably would move into the area.

We commissioned specific research into the options and it became clear that, in addition to the factors I have mentioned, the first option would inevitably lead to the closure of Heathrow, threatening more than 100,000 jobs, which would be devastating. It would also require a significant public subsidy of up to £30 billion towards surface infrastructure and compensation for the closure of Heathrow, which would be on top of the tens of billions of pounds that it would cost to build the new airport itself.

The second option is to link existing airports through high-speed rail to form a split hub, perhaps involving Gatwick and Heathrow—Heathwick. That was rejected because of uncompetitive connection times for transferring passengers, especially compared with the transfer times of competitor hubs overseas. The third option is to expand one or more of our existing airports. We looked in detail at the possibility of expanding Gatwick and/or Stansted as alternatives to the expansion of Heathrow, but new runways alone, distributed across a number of airports, will not provide a long-term solution to the specific problem of hub capacity. We concluded that expansion of Heathrow with a third runway would be the best way forward, and that was also the solution that British business throughout the country overwhelmingly favoured.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I appreciate the work the Committee has done, but I wonder whether it has been somewhat bamboozled by the public relations operation that is Heathrow. The fact is that it has been the only game in town for a number of years. To dismiss the option of expanding other south-east airports as a split hub, rather than viewing them as a network serving the whole of the huge city of London and the south-east, is somewhat too glib.

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. Our report looks specifically at his suggestions, but we came to the very clear conclusion that the expansion of Heathrow was the only realistic option. We recognise that there might be a case for additional runways at Gatwick and perhaps Stansted, but that is not an alternative to additional hub capacity at Heathrow.

We acknowledged the need to address the very real environmental objections that may arise. In particular, noise in excess of 55 dB is a major problem for more than 700,000 people in the airport’s vicinity. We have suggested a number of steps that could be taken to mitigate that serious issue. Planes are getting quieter, but aircraft manufacturers must continue to develop quieter aircraft. To facilitate that, we recommend that the Government, through their involvement with the International Civil Aviation Organisation, try to influence global noise standards. Airports themselves should encourage airlines to take older, noisier aircraft out of service at the earliest opportunity, and people living under the flight path who are affected by excessive noise should be adequately compensated. We have called on the Government to develop a comprehensive, nationwide approach to noise compensation. The Civil Aviation Authority should review existing flight paths and landing approach angles to reduce noise pollution.

Local air quality is also important, and the Government should draw up plans to ensure that the EU limits on air pollutants are met. We were especially concerned about unnecessary emissions that are generated due to the stacking of aircraft over London. We recommended that NATS, the air traffic controllers, should carry out modelling work to identify the extent to which stacking might be reduced if an additional runway was built at Heathrow. Ultimately, any plans for increased aviation capacity must take account of progress on global initiatives to deal with emissions.

It is vital to remember that a hub airport is about serving the national interest, meaning that 63 million people in the UK are affected. Local problems must be addressed, but that must be done in the context of considering the needs of the UK as a whole.

Our report looked at the important role that is played by airports outside the south-east. We hope that increased capacity at Heathrow would improve connectivity to other UK regions as more slots became available. The Government should do more to reduce the barriers that are faced by airports when trying to secure new routes, such as through better marketing or the introduction of an unrestricted open skies policy outside the south-east. The introduction of an air passenger duty holiday, which we have recommended, would also encourage the development of new routes.

In the course of our inquiry, we heard numerous concerns about the high rate of air passenger duty, which is damaging to UK plc and puts UK aviation at a disadvantage compared with our European competitors. We were disappointed that the Government rejected our recommendation to reduce significantly or abolish air passenger duty and we are concerned that they show no willingness to undertake a full review of its economic impact.

Parliament has shied away from deciding whether and where to permit additional aviation capacity in the south-east. That is a prime example of a failure to recognise our infrastructure needs. The Davies commission will produce an interim report at the end of this year with recommendations for immediate action to improve the use of existing runway capacity over the next five years, as well as a short list of options to address capacity over the longer term, but the commission’s final report will not be published until after the general election in 2015.

We must act decisively on this issue before we lose our competitive edge as a global hub for aviation. The commission must provide a robust and independent evidence base for future decisions, as well as recommendations for action. The failure to take a decision has consequences for the UK because it puts our competitiveness and economic success at risk. When the Davies commission reports, it will be time to decide, and that will be the challenge for the 2015 Parliament. I hope that today’s debate assists the House in identifying the key issues so that a conclusion that is in the interests of the UK can be reached.

Select Committee Inquiry (Aviation Strategy)

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Louise Ellman

Thursday 13th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Ellman]

The Committee is calling for the submission of evidence and it will then decide who it sees as appropriate to invite to give oral evidence. We are asking for the most diverse possible evidence to be given, and we will consider it all very carefully.

It is important for Parliament to be involved in the aviation debate and to be able to assess the evidence on these key issues in the public interest. The Select Committee’s work should enable that to happen.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

All Members will welcome an independent inquiry, as I suspect we already know that the Government’s inquiry will opt for the third runway at Heathrow, and the Mayor of London’s inquiry will go for Boris island. We welcome the independence, but will my hon. Friend take on board the dismay felt in west London that after many years of uncertainty all three main parties were against the third runway, but that that consensus has now been overturned? The prospect of a third runway in the middle of London is not conscionable, so will my hon. Friend consider excluding it, as the Mayor’s inquiry does, from her inquiry?

Gaza

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Louise Ellman

Tuesday 15th June 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Ellman]

The reality is that Gaza is run by Hamas, an Islamist organisation that is proscribed by the EU, the USA and Canada as a terrorist organisation. Its regime has led to this dreadful situation for the people of Gaza. That cannot be ignored; it is a fact. More questions need to be asked about that flotilla, focusing on that sixth vessel. What is the role of the Turkish IHH—again, a charitable organisation linked to Hamas and other terrorist organisations? What about the recording that was made in relation to that sixth vessel, showing that when the Israelis repeatedly asked it to land at Ashdod, the reply came back, “Go back to Auschwitz”? What about the fact that people on that sixth vessel were armed with metal rods with knives, and that a lynching of Israelis was attempted? I have no doubt that the majority of people on those vessels were genuine peace activists, but were they infiltrated by somebody else with other ideas?

What about the reports that we have seen since those events in the Turkish media? Families of people who were regrettably killed on that vessel have stated that their partner—the husband in one case—said that he wanted to be a martyr. Even more damning, what about the broadcast that was made on Hamas TV on 30 May, the day before the incident happened, when a university lecturer said that the participants in that flotilla wanted to die as martyrs even more than they wanted to reach Gaza? What a condemnation.

[Mr Slaughter]

My hon. Friend is repeating the information—if I can call it that—put out by the Israeli authorities in the immediate aftermath of the incident, for which no evidence has been produced. Is she seriously saying that, because Israeli forces normally get away with abseiling heavily armed on to ships in the middle of the night, when, on one occasion, people resist and nine of them are shot dead, they had it coming to them? My hon. Friend should consider the language she uses, even in putting forward her case so strongly.

[Jim Sheridan in the Chair]

[Mrs Ellman]

The detail of what happened on the ship will come from the inquiries, but the information that I have brought to this debate—I think very damning condemnation of what happened—does not come from Israeli sources. It comes from the Turkish media and what has been shown on Hamas TV. Those facts might be very inconvenient for people who do not want to know about them, but they are there and they are part of the picture.