Oral Answers to Questions

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Thursday 11th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

This is a very important issue, and one that my Department and the Civil Aviation Authority are reviewing carefully. Notwithstanding the work needed in the shorter term to address noise from City airport, I believe that the outcome of our airspace modernisation programme, using new technology to manage airspace, will enable us to manage the impacts on communities much better and make a real difference.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

Yesterday, the World Health Organisation issued new, tighter guidelines on noise. Given that about 1.5 million people in London and the south-east already live within the 45 dB Lden noise contour, where the WHO now says there are adverse health impacts, will the Government reassess their approach to Heathrow expansion?

[Chris Grayling]

It is important to recognise that the change in technology—the arrival of a new generation of lower noise, lower emission and lower fuel-consuming aircraft—will transform the environment around Heathrow and all our airports. One just has to listen to a Boeing 747 landing at Heathrow compared with, for example, one of the new Airbus or Boeing aeroplanes to realise the huge difference. As the older aeroplanes are phased out, I expect noise at all airports will be reduced, and that is a good thing.

Cycling: Gilligan Report

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Tuesday 4th September 2018 Commons Chamber

As I was saying, what a wasted opportunity there. That same lack of ambition was seen in the development of Oxford Parkway station, where there was no real creation of integrated cycle routes, despite the fact that the station is within easy cycling distance of tens of thousands of people in Oxford and Kidlington. To cross the roundabout one has to get off one’s bike and walk—that is not good enough. Councils are great at rhetoric, yet when the schemes are finally implemented, we rarely see the warm words we often hear come to fruition. So my question to the Minister is: how do we hold councils to account?

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I welcome the fact that my fellow officer in the all-party group on cycling has brought about this debate. Does the hon. Lady agree that rather than having insufficient funds available from government for local authorities that actively want to use them, there should be some stronger incentive that forces local authorities to draw down funding and spend it on safe and segregated cycle provision to new and existing developments and transport networks?

[Layla Moran]

I thank the hon. Lady very much for her intervention, because she touches on the crux of the issue. Everyone says that they want to make this happen, but when it comes to implementation, they need a stronger arm to make sure it does. In Abingdon, there is no masterplan for integrating cycle routes between different developments, despite the fact that new housing could and should provide a new route between Abingdon and Radley, where the railway station would make a fantastic cycling parkway station. We need to make sure that when plans for the redevelopment of Oxford station come forward, proper cycling facilities are front and centre of them. Julia Bird points out that the lack of investment and facilities means that she often does not take her bike with her into the city centre because it would get stolen, so she keeps

“a basic one for fear it'll get pinched.”

Connectivity is the key. As the report points out,

“Provision at dispersed employment sites is worse”

than in Oxford city.

It also states:

“Provision for out-city commuters is key but barely exists.”

It is crucial that the communities and towns surrounding Oxford are not forgotten.

Another potential wasted opportunity is the upcoming Oxford flood alleviation scheme, which I am not told will not include a cycle path that would connect Oxford to Abingdon, despite repeated assurances at the beginning of the scheme that that would be put in place. May I beg the Minister to have a word with his colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs? It would be so much cheaper to do this now than to do it retrospectively. As my fantastic colleague Councillor Emily Smith points out, it is vital that there is more joined-up working, not just between Government and the councils, but between the district, county and city councils, and that existing funding for cycle routes that are under threat is not lost. I would be grateful for any support the Minister can give to impress on all the councils to actively work together.

Moving from the local to the national, I would like to see the Gilligan report be a catalyst for action across the country. The importance of mainstreaming cycle-planning, integrated networks, consistent design standards and the wider aim of traffic reduction cannot be overstated. When the Department has reviewed its guidance on cycling infrastructure design, it needs to be applied consistently. It is clear that in Oxfordshire we have the political will, but support from the Government is crucial to reallocating road space from motor traffic to cycling.

So, how do we achieve all that? As Andrew Gilligan himself says, the plans will need money, alongside a change in the national view of cycling as unimportant and unworthy of serious spending. The £150 million suggested in the report sounds like a lot, but it is necessary, and it does not begin to compare to the amounts being invested in new road facilities—for example, as part of the controversial Oxford to Cambridge expressway. Critically, the money must not be a series of taps turned on and off; instead, we need a long-term strategic commitment to improving cycling infrastructure, not just in Oxford but across the country. Investing in road and rail without cycle infrastructure would be the wrong approach.

Given that officials are already starting to prepare for the Treasury’s next cross-departmental spending review, I am keen to do anything that I can to support the Minister in his bid to secure a better national funding settlement for cycling and walking. For example, I would like to see realised the 2013 “Get Britain Cycling” report’s ambition of there being spending of £10 per person annually, rising to £20 per person later. I of course welcome the Government’s cycling and walking investment strategy, but it could and should be much more ambitious. Rather than small investments that double the number of cyclists nationwide from 2% to 4%, we need to get the proportion to a fifth at the very least.

Of the £340 million that has so far been allocated specifically for walking and cycling, does the Minister know how much has been spent, where and how? I am told that he does not. If he does not, how do we know that any of the various schemes are going to work? The report was clear that it is better not to spend money at all than to spend it badly. Will the Minister also say how much of that money is left, so that all the rest of it can be spent in Oxford?

The report concludes that congestion in Oxford is close to unmanageable and brings pollution and health problems. In the longer term the investment will pay for itself; will the Minister confirm that his Treasury colleagues will take that into account in the spending review? Cycling not only benefits people’s physical health but reduces air pollution. Investment in cycling benefits policy aims in not only the Department for Transport but in the Department of Health and Social Care, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—win, win, win, win.

In conclusion, we have a huge opportunity in Oxfordshire. With a cross-departmental, long-term approach from the Government, better working between councils and local organisations, and the funding boost recommended by the Gilligan report, we can be ambitious for the future of cycling in Oxford. I hope that the Minister and his Department will help Oxfordshire to realise its ambitions to be a world leader and the country’s greatest cycling city.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

De-trunked roads are an important priority for me. We are shaping our plans to introduce the major road network and to start making funds available for things such as bypasses on roads that were de-trunked 20 or 30 years ago and where there is a pressing need for improvement.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

3. What assessment he has made of the potential effect of increased landing charges at Heathrow Airport on the financial viability of the proposed expansion of that airport.

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

I have been absolutely clear that expansion will be privately financed, and the Government have taken independent expert advice which demonstrated that expansion is capable of being financed without Government support. I have been clear that airport charges must be controlled, which is why I set out in 2016 that expansion should be delivered with airport charges remaining as close as possible to current levels. It is the Civil Aviation Authority’s job to enforce that, and I am certain that it will do so.

[Ruth Cadbury]

The Airports Commission has indicated that landing charges would have to rise by around 70% per passenger, and British Airways has warned that any such increase would make many routes from Heathrow no longer commercially viable. Would that not have significant consequences for regional connections and/or increase ticket prices for passengers?

[Chris Grayling]

We have of course been working to ensure that the cost of the original scheme was brought down in order to avoid a 70% rise in landing charges, but I have been clear that the requirement to set aside around 15% of slots for regional connections is non-negotiable and fixed. It will not be possible to change those slots to long-haul destinations because they are an essential part of the reform.

National Policy Statement: Airports

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

My expectation is that we will see substantial growth. I would not put an exact percentage on it, but I have said that I will use the public service obligation mechanisms to set aside 15% of the additional capacity at Heathrow for links around the United Kingdom. We will use the PSO mechanisms to ensure that airports such as those in Northern Ireland, which are already thoroughly successful, benefit from this connection, and we will do the same in Scotland, the south-west and at other airports in the north and potentially north Wales, where this can make a difference.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

How many airports per region will be protected by that “up to 15%” promise in the document? I have been led to understand that the Department will only protect one per region.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I shall seek to go under eight minutes if I can, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Speaker for allowing me to speak from the Back Benches, given the direct impact of the proposal on my constituency and my constituents, who find the whole debate heartbreaking.

Occasionally in the House there are defining moments, and I think that this is a defining moment on a number of issues. It is a defining vote tonight. As we have heard in the debate, it is a defining vote, first, on climate change. The evidence from the Select Committee on Transport and others basically outlines the fact that if we are to tackle climate change, as the Committee on Climate Change said, we have to restrict the growth of aviation to 55%. However, as has been evidenced in the debate, it looks as if it might hit 90% or 100% by 2050. As a result of Heathrow expansion, that means that regional airports will have to be constrained or, as the Committee on Climate Change said, other sectors of industry will be constrained within our economy. To be frank, on past evidence we will not meet those targets, so we will jeopardise our potential to tackle climate change.

The second issue that has been raised in our discussions is whether we are going to tackle the grotesque inequalities of investment geographically across the country. Tonight, we have learned from some of the views that have been expressed that we will not do so. The economic benefits were announced by the Airports Commission: we were meant to gain £147 billion. The Government reduced that figure to £74 billion, then to £72 billion. Now we know that that was the gross benefit, and that the present net value ranges from £3 billion over 60 years to minus £2 billion. If there is a 1% delay in the project, that is completely wiped out. Costs will not be borne by Heathrow Airport Ltd, because it has a leverage rate—a debt to asset value—of 85%. If it expands that will be over 90%. When the Government—not with my wishes—privatised the National Air Traffic Services, we prevented companies from bidding if they went anywhere near 65%. Heathrow will not find the money—the cost will be borne by taxpayers. The biggest taxpayer burden will be the surface infrastructure, assessed by Transport for London as £15 billion.

That money will come from investments, but they will not be in London and the south-east, and we will see delays and the ending of investments in transport and infrastructure around the country. We have heard about the growth of regional airports being held back, but the proposal will hold back growth in road and rail, along with all the benefits of infrastructure.

[Ruth Cadbury]

Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the much needed infrastructure promised as part of this statement—the southern and western rail links, along with Crossrail—have been on the cards for many years, and are needed for the existing number of passengers at Heathrow?

[John McDonnell]

It is an obvious point that we have made time and again in the House. We have been pressing for investment in infrastructure for the existing airport, but it has not been forthcoming.

We do not even know what the infrastructure plan is for the area. Last time, the infrastructure plan included a road through my local cemetery. We were meant to disinter the dead to enable access to Heathrow. We have still not seen the infrastructure plans. No wonder my constituents are angry about this. That is the third defining point. Does the House stand up for people and communities, especially working-class communities, or does it stand up to protect the interests of a corporate cartel that has ripped us off for decades? Ask how much—

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

The case for runway 3 is as bad as ever for my constituents, and now weak overall, as the economic case has not been made—and that is based on the Department for Transport’s latest figures. The proposal keeps coming back—16 years, I think, it has been—and I have been campaigning against it all that time. It keeps coming back not because of an unwillingness to make a decision, but because successive generations have realised that the arguments for expansion do not stack up. The generously funded Heathrow lobby keeps bringing the proposal back and will continue to do so until it gets the answer it wants. Meanwhile, we have not moved on to seriously address alternative solutions as part of a nationwide UK aviation strategy.

On noise and air quality, which are the issues affecting my constituents most of all, more than 300,000 people in our region of west London and the Thames valley will experience significantly worse noise than they do now. Most of them are not aware that they will be under the final approach path to the third runway. Those under the present approach paths to the existing two runways currently get eight hours respite; that will be cut to six hours and perhaps less. On night flights, the Secretary of State has suggested that the cap will be relaxed, despite promises. Runway 3 will bring 50% more passengers. Heathrow says that there will be no new traffic, but there is nothing in the NPS to justify that claim.

[Zac Goldsmith]

The hon. Lady has campaigned valiantly on this issue and deserves more than three minutes in which to make her case.

[Ruth Cadbury]

I thank my neighbouring colleague.

There is nothing in the NPS to justify how Heathrow can get away with saying that there will be no new traffic despite 50% more passengers, a doubling of cargo, and additional flight servicing and staffing. It is absolutely impossible. As everybody acknowledges, all the proposed rail infrastructure is needed now to meet current traffic pressures. Our roads system has ground to a halt, and our air quality has already been in breach of EU limits for many years. The Government will continue to lose legal challenges as a result.

There is nothing in the NPS on the air pollution generated by aircraft, and there is nothing on climate change obligations that will satisfy the Committee on Climate Change, as we will no doubt hear on Thursday. All the additional passengers arising from expansion will be outward leisure passengers and transfer passengers. The increase will bring nothing to the economy and will take the tourist pound away from the UK’s beautiful tourist destinations. Heathrow expansion means more intense use of existing routes such as New York. It will restrict growth at non-south-east airports by 24%—those are not my figures but the Department’s—reduce domestic routes to Heathrow from the current eight to four or five, and mean 160,000 fewer international links from regional airports, thus making our regions less connected to the rest of the world than they are now, according to page 27 of the Transport Committee’s report.

The hub airport model has been superseded by a preference for direct point-to-point flights among passengers and businesses who would rather not change, and also by the new ultra long-haul planes. Unused capacity outside London could, without Heathrow expansion, mean a growth of 62% in flights and 96% in passengers. Without Government intervention, domestic slots from regional airports to Heathrow cannot be guaranteed. The Government appear to have written a blank cheque to Heathrow by signing an agreement with a clause reaffirming the company’s right to sue the Government if Ministers back out of the scheme—a clause not included in the agreement on the Heathrow hub or that with Gatwick. It is increasingly evident that the Government are supporting the most expensive, most complex and highest risk scheme. Heathrow should be better not bigger.

Airports National Policy Statement

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Thursday 7th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Lilian Greenwood]

I think Heathrow is the dominant voice, but in part that is because it is our only hub airport. Many of the arguments that the Government have put forward are predicated on the importance of that hub status, although I will address some of the other points, which I am sure my hon. Friend will want to hear.

Right hon. and hon. Members will have seen the Department for Transport’s latest summary, which rehearses some of these arguments with some very nice graphics, so I need not say more about it than that. Our inquiry sought to get into the detail of the scheme and how valid concerns about the Government’s approach might be addressed in a final NPS before Parliament was asked to approve it. I confess that when we sought this debate, we did not anticipate that the Government would have already laid their final version of the airports NPS, which happened two days ago. I commend them for their speedy actions. I welcome the Secretary of State’s remarks in the Chamber on Tuesday in which he thanked the Committee for the scrutiny we completed. I also recognised the shadow Secretary of State’s acknowledgement that we “left no stone unturned” in our report.

Conducting detailed scrutiny is absolutely critical, and I am immensely proud of the detailed work that our Committee completed within the time available. The Heathrow plans have been more than 20 years in the making. The implications of Parliament’s decision will last even longer. It is important that we get this right.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend and her colleagues on the Transport Committee for their work. Given the depth and rigour that her Committee went into on the detailed elements of the case, does she agree that the Secretary of State has come up with a remarkably brief response in a very short time and could not possibly have had the time to answer all the detailed questions that her Committee’s report quite rightly put?

[Lilian Greenwood]

The Secretary of State responded within approximately two months to our report. We are looking at the detail of the final report and what has made its way into the final NPS.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I, too, congratulate the Transport Committee and its Chair on an excellent piece of work unpicking the details of the case for the third runway. I may not agree with the overall conclusion to support a third runway, but that conclusion was heavily caveated. I support the detailed work that was done. It is impartial and well-evidenced, and the 25 recommendations are spot on.

On Tuesday, the Secretary of State released the final airports national policy statement. He is telling Members that he agreed with the Transport Committee on 24 of its 25 recommendations, but he did not. Answering demands for specific detailed information with a fudge, or a “wait and see”, is not agreeing with recommendations. The Government have decided to go ahead despite the evidence to the contrary, much of it embedded in the Committee’s report.

I want to bring the debate back to my constituency and the many other constituencies around Heathrow. The third runway will be bad news for the communities affected. It is not a few hundred people or a few hundred homes; up to 2 million people and more than 1 million homes will experience more noise than they do at present. A third runway means locally that tens of thousands of homes that do not currently experience significant noise—noise at the level that the daughter of the hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) experiences in Chiswick—will have planes overhead.

Many people in Heston, Osterley, Brentford, the north side of Chiswick and through into the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) and on into Kensington do not have planes overhead on their final approach every 60 to 90 seconds for much of the day, but they will. Most of those people, as has already been said, do not know that the approach path will be over their heads or that the planes are locked into their final approach from six to 30 nautical miles out. There cannot be any variation on the approach 70% of the time when the planes are operating on a westerly approach.

[Mr Dhesi]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point about the unpredictability of the flight paths, which as yet NATS has not disclosed. Does she agree that before we proceed with any third runway we need to have cast-iron guarantees, particularly on a 6.5-hour ban on night flights, and stringent application of air quality control and noise limits?

[Ruth Cadbury]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and so does the Transport Committee. The Government seem to be softening their previous commitment to an absolute night flight ban of 6.5 hours. That really concerns me—it is one of a number of commitments on which the Government appear to be reneging.

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Lady is right to be sceptical. Those of us living close to the airport know that Heathrow Airport Limited recently proposed to start effectively normal operations from 5.30 am, but dressed it up as part of some sort of night flights ban for which we should all be extremely grateful. There is constantly a challenge of doublespeak. When Sydney airport opened its third runway, there was huge controversy around the fact that residents were simply not told how they would be affected by noise. That is exactly the mistake that we are making here.

[Ruth Cadbury]

The right hon. Lady is right. There is absolutely no reason why the Government and Heathrow airport cannot draw a straight line east and west of the third runway site for at least six to 13 miles. Irrespective of the NATS wider flight path revisions, by the time the planes are overhead in my constituency, they are locked into a final approach and there can be no variation. Therefore, if we know where the runway is, we know where the final approach is. Neither the Government nor the airport have had the courtesy to produce a map to show to people in Heston, Osterley, Brentford, Chiswick and Hammersmith. I really think that they should.

Up to 2 million people will experience more noise, and 300,000 more people will experience significantly more noise than they do at the moment. They are looking at planes, but generally not hearing them very loudly at the moment. Those people will start experiencing noise at the level currently experienced in parts of Isleworth, West Hounslow, Kew, Putney and so on.

The expansion will also mean around 50% more traffic movements on an already severely congested network, with the associated air pollution and the economic cost of the delays of that congestion. When we talk about traffic movements, we are not just talking about passengers. Any transport modelling must factor in all the other movements in and out of the airport, including those who work there, flight crew, flight servicing and, of course, cargo. Much of flight servicing and cargo cannot go on any route other than by road. Many of us just laugh at Heathrow’s claim that it can increase capacity with a third runway without increasing road travel.

I understand that the Minister told the House this morning—I am sorry I could not be there; I was on constituency business—that he does not recognise the £10 billion figure that was suggested by Transport for London as the cost of essential transport infrastructure. I gather that he then said words to the effect of, “It’ll be all right because the Elizabeth line, or Crossrail, and west and southern rail access will deal with the pressure of expansion.” As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith rightly said, those routes will deal only with current airport demand and population growth in the region.

Transport for London is very clear that the Elizabeth line, or Crossrail, will provide little modal shift from roads. The other two schemes have been ideas and plans since terminal 5 was constructed, and are still no further forward, particularly because the Government have not committed to putting any public funding into them. All three schemes are needed right now to deal with Heathrow’s appallingly low levels of public transport access. When it comes to a cap on the increase in airport-related traffic, the Government cannot get away with referring just to passengers.

The Transport Committee requested a minimum average period of seven hours of respite a night. The national policy statement does not change the initial Government proposal of a 6.5-hour ban. Even this week, the Government are saying that the NPS

“does not preclude consideration of different options.”

We are very worried about that. That sounds to me like going back on the night flight commitment.

I want to address the point about jobs, which trade unions and Labour colleagues often raise with me. There will of course be more jobs created at Heathrow—Heathrow Airport Limited said yesterday that there would be 14,000. I am not denying that there is some unemployment in our region, particularly of young people, but of all areas of the UK, our sub-region around Heathrow airport probably has among the lowest levels of unemployment.

The Transport Committee said that a lot of the new jobs creation promised by runway three will be displaced jobs. If anybody wants to know what the job situation is at Heathrow at the moment, just go on to Heathrow airport’s jobs recruitment site. It is looking for hundreds of people—low skilled, middle skilled and highly skilled—for all sorts of jobs. There is a recruitment crisis in west London and the Thames Valley, which is being exacerbated by Brexit. The jobs problem that we have at the moment, particularly at Heathrow, is one of too many low-skilled, zero-hours, poorly paid jobs with poor conditions. I congratulate Heathrow Airport Ltd on signing a commitment to the London living wage, but it cannot control all the various employers in and around Heathrow. There are regions of the UK that need those jobs far more than London. West London and the Thames Valley have many other growth sectors.

Those of us near Heathrow are used to the record of broken and watered down promises on Heathrow. I have been at this game for 16 years now. This week, the final NPS ignored the detail of many of the Transport Committee’s recommendations and has watered down previous commitments on the night flight ban, the cap on total flight numbers, and the cap on the charges to airlines if costs escalate. Runway three and continuing traffic congestion will mean that children and older people will carry on dying of respiratory failure as air pollution continues to escalate—some of that from aeroplanes; a lot of that from traffic.

What of the impact on UK plc? Much of the case for a third runway at Heathrow implies that the future of aviation is in the hub model, linking short-haul routes to long-haul through the hub and spoke model. However, the Transport Committee had very mixed evidence on the hub issue, with many reputable witnesses pointing out that point-to-point travel is growing, and will grow, faster than hub travel, particularly with the relatively recent emergence of the long-haul Dreamliner plane, selling far better than the enormous A380s. Moreover, the Transport Committee identified what the Department for Transport did not: that Gatwick is growing its long-haul destinations, and aims to have 50 long-haul destinations soon, so Gatwick could become a secondary London hub.

We have heard already that all bar four domestic routes will struggle without Government protection. That will add to the cost to the public purse of Heathrow expansion. The Secretary of State as good as admitted that when he released the NPS. He said that Birmingham airport will face “greater competitive pressures” as a result of runway three. Furthermore, the Transport Committee found that long-haul international routes from Scotland and northern airports are more likely to survive commercially if there is no additional runway in the south-east.

Despite promises to MPs, the Transport Committee report showed that all the growth in passenger numbers are outbound leisure travellers—that is, yet more Brits taking their holiday pound away from Britain’s beautiful places, which would really benefit from more tourists. The Committee said that if the UK is to comply with its commitment to cut carbon dioxide emissions, then if runway three goes ahead, growth will have to be curbed at all other UK airports. Furthermore, other sectors of the economy face serious reductions and restraints to keep UK carbon emissions within the limits.

Why should whole swathes of London and the south-east pay the price of yet more noise, increased congestion, worse pollution, and a greater safety risk? Why should other sectors of the economy have to further curb their carbon emissions when, according to the Transport Committee report, a third runway at Heathrow shows poor value for money for the UK and no additional international connectivity? It will mean that non-UK regions risk losing their connections to London without subsidy. They will lose direct international connections and their tourist pounds.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I just wanted to clarify one point. My hon. Friend said that the Transport Committee had said that there would be less international direct connectivity. That is not the case. We said that there was not a huge increase with the expansion of the north-west runway than there would be under other expansion options. It is worth pointing out that direct international connectivity for non-London airports will increase under an expansion scenario, but it will not increase as much as it would have if there was no expansion.

[Ruth Cadbury]

I apologise to the Committee Chair if I got that wrong; I will double check the facts. I would certainly agree that the growth of direct international connectivity is not dependent on another runway at Heathrow. In fact, I believe that there will be only one additional destination from Heathrow with a third runway. Much of the increased demand will be, as I have said, outbound leisure tourists adding to existing routes that are already heavily used. That is where most of the demand will be and not, as Heathrow keeps saying, to newly emerging destinations. It can say that as much as it likes, but unless the demand is truly there to sustain the new routes, they are not going to happen.

Why risk sucking capital funding that is needed for essential regional transport infrastructure and upgrading into yet another expensive project in London that actually does little for the economy? By pushing for runway three, the Government are just writing a blank cheque on behalf of the UK taxpayer or the passenger, while further undermining an already poor environment for large parts of London and the south-east.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

I rise to speak in support of the report of the Transport Committee, of which I am a member. I will keep my comments brief. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) for her leadership of the Committee during this inquiry. I thank all the Clerks and officials who worked so hard in preparing the report. Without their work, it would not be so comprehensive a tome—Members have clearly been wading through it.

I am still reviewing the final national policy statement, which was published earlier this week, so I will confine my remarks to the three areas of concern I majored on in the Committee. The first is surface connectivity. Broadly, my view is, “Yes, but”, but the buts are very important. I do not believe that the NPS sets out a sufficiently ambitious plan for surface connectivity.

During our inquiry, the Government changed their position on western rail access, which I and my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) have been calling for since we entered the House a year ago. The Government’s backtracking and indecisiveness over western rail access is not conducive to getting the result we need for those areas. Especially for people coming from the far south-west, western rail access is absolutely pivotal for a two-runway world, let alone a three-runway world in the future. Building a new rail line from Reading to Heathrow makes good economic and transport sense, and it is hard to find anyone who does not agree with it. That is probably the core reason why it has not happened to date: there is no friction on western rail access to make it an issue that people debate. There is therefore no pressure on Ministers to fund it properly, so it has not happened to date, despite the near-universal agreement about it. That has to be resolved quickly.

Earlier this week, I asked the Secretary of State whether western rail access was fully funded. He replied that he believed that it was. However, I cannot see any pot of money to fund it in CP6; nor can I see the Heathrow contribution being sufficient to fund it; nor does the Secretary of State seem to have squirrelled away an extra pot of money to fund it. I would be grateful if the Minister told us where the fully funded pot of money for western rail access was, because it needs to happen.

I want to see more surface access to Heathrow. At present, the plans barely deal with the challenges of a two-runway world, let alone a three-runway world. That is really important. If we are to believe that the third runway will happen, we need a modal shift to deal with the threats to air pollution and to minimise the car use that we are expecting. That means that we need Ministers and Heathrow Airport Ltd to be more ambitious to achieve the potential of that.

I want to see Heathrow dig further into its pockets to pay for the surface access. I believe that Heathrow has a big pot of money that it should be arm-twisted into spending to improve such access, and that the money is being held back as part of the negotiation strategy, to offset further things during the planning process, especially the development consent order process. That money should clearly be spent on surface access now.

[Ruth Cadbury]

Does my hon. Friend have any faith in Heathrow shifting funding to surface access, given that the airport spent a lot of its money on a legal challenge to the original proposal for what is now called Crossrail or the Elizabeth line in order to protect Heathrow Express, which is not a lot of use in the modern world?

[Luke Pollard]

Heathrow Express is the most expensive rail line in the world in terms of ticket price. There is certainly an incentive to ensure that all surface access will be affordable and accessible. If there is to be a congestion charge around Heathrow, personally I would like more money to be spent on ensuring that every single tube station in west London and throughout the entire network is accessible for disabled people, who will find that a congestion charge makes getting to the airport too expensive in the first place.

The Government need to do much more. Furthermore, the rather odd way in which airports are regulated by the Civil Aviation Authority means that there is no incentive on Heathrow to be more efficient, and that needs to be looked at. I would like to see some of that greater efficiency invested back into surface access—through Great Western, Heathrow Southern, improved bus access, the Piccadilly line upgrade, the Chiltern line, High Speed 2 and Crossrail, as well as much more besides—so that we genuinely achieve the modal shift necessary. Such a shift is essential if we are to deal with concerns about air quality. Casting our mind back a few years to the start of the Davies commission work, air quality was an issue, but not to the extent that it is today. It was not raised with the same ferocity as it would be today, and it did not have the same science and evidence behind it. Greater surface access should alleviate some concerns about air quality, but not all of them. If we get air quality right, we will probably get surface access right, and if we get surface access right, we will probably get air quality right. They go hand in hand.

The NPS and Heathrow’s own air quality plans need strengthening—the Select Committee dealt with that in our report. We only need to look at the NPS’s curiously out of date costs for oxides of nitrogen, or NOx, to understand why that needs to happen urgently. When the Davies commission first looked at airport expansion, air quality was not as big an issue as it is today, which means that we need different measures from those applied in the past.

The prominence of air quality is only going to increase, in west London, Piccadilly and Plymouth, and that is why it is so important for the Government and Heathrow to be bolder. Banning diesel cars by 2040 is a start but, if I am honest, it is a bit of a wet lettuce attempt at ambition. It should happen much sooner, with the target being brought forward, because the vast majority of concerns about air quality around Heathrow are caused by cars accessing the airport and servicing the individuals who work there.

Electric vehicles need to play a much bigger role. I was warmed and heartened to hear Heathrow talk about introducing more airside electric vehicles—the sheer buying power of that airport means that it could create a new market in airside electric vehicles—and I want to see such a plan drawn up. If Heathrow genuinely believes that, it needs to make that plan a core part of how it addresses air quality, and that needs to start with procurement and not just soundbites—it needs big, bold action now.

I also want to talk about airport charges. The expansion will in truth cost a fortune, and it will ultimately be down to passengers to pay for it. At the heart of this is the fact that people who fly from Heathrow will pay for the expansion. Yes, it may be cost-recovered to the airlines, but passengers will pay for the tickets that include the charges. The Secretary of State is broadly right to want no increase in charges, but the regulatory framework of the CAA is not sufficient to ensure that charges are kept low. The Government need to look at that in future, because I suspect that passengers will be paying more and more.

I found much merit in the idea of competition in terminal operation in the new expanded Heathrow—we are talking about not only a new runway but new terminals. To keep costs down at Heathrow, which will be the largest privately funded infrastructure project in the world, the basic tenets of a market economy need to kick in. Competition—not always welcome on my side of the House—for Heathrow, in the private sector, should be looked at. Competition over terminal operation could keep charges low at the airport. That is something that has been pushed not only by Willie Walsh and Surinder Arora but by many others. We need to keep that option on the table throughout the process.

I mentioned earlier the rather odd way in which Heathrow is regulated. The CAA incentivises expensive builds. It simply loads debt on to the regulated asset base, against which Heathrow can then generate profits to cover the borrowing. There is therefore no incentive to be efficient, creative or innovative, or to deliver schemes faster, better and cheaper. That needs to be addressed in the wider scheme, because although it is privately funded, there is a risk to the public sector if such incentives are not brought back in.

The promise made to the regions and nations by Heathrow is important, and must be delivered in the process. That promise must be delivered. Promises made to airports such as Newquay and Exeter in the far south-west must be delivered. If I am honest, I am still a bit curious about how that 15% of aviation can be allocated to regional airports under international law, but I shall leave that one for the Minister and Heathrow to address. However, we must ensure that we are safeguarding not only routes for Exeter and Newquay but future routes for the reopened Plymouth airport—routes from Plymouth to Heathrow would help to make Plymouth airport more viable in future.

Those promises made to the regions and nations of the country will be the bedrock of any vote taken by Members of Parliament in favour of Heathrow. However, my main concern when we were drafting the Select Committee report was whether any scheme would survive a legal challenge—unless the recommendations of the Transport Committee are addressed not only in the NPS element but in the DCO process. In fact, a lot of the detail adopted by the Government but shifted into the DCO process needs to be brought forward into the NPS part to provide certainty for people about what their future holds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

I do not think that is true, if I may say so. It has already been shown that the Department and the Government’s position has moved in reaction to concerns expressed about this issue. That is why I have described the changes that we are making to predictable periods of relief from noise through a runway programme.

It has been suggested at different times in the debate by some that the Government are rushing headlong, pell-mell into a sudden decision, and by others that we have become immured and mired in consultation and delay. The truth is that we are making fairly steady and stately progress towards a set of decisions, which may go one way or the other, depending on the merits of the case, and we are doing so with previous Governments, certainly on the Labour side, having supported this proposal, so we are rather hoping that many Labour Members will continue to support it.

New technology is already making aircraft quieter. By the time a third runway is operational at Heathrow, we would expect airlines to be making much greater use of quieter, more efficient aircraft, which would also help reduce noise.

I want to respond to the Committee’s concerns about the potential effect of pollution on our air quality. Again, we have made changes. We have made the national policy statement clearer that delivering according to air quality obligations will provide protections for health and the environment. We have also made it very clear that the third runway will be allowed to go ahead only if it can be delivered in compliance with the UK’s air quality obligations. The environmental assessment and mitigations proposed by the airport will be very carefully scrutinised, I need hardly say, before any development consent is granted. Measures including a potential emissions-based access charge, the use of zero or low-emissions vehicles and an increase in public transport mode share use by passengers and employees would all contribute towards mitigating the impacts of an expanded airport.

I have touched already on community compensation. This is another issue that we take extremely seriously. On the issue of the compensation package for local communities, we share the Committee’s view that that is a fundamental component of the package of measures that accompany the north-west runway scheme. Heathrow Airport Holdings Ltd has committed to paying homeowners who will need to move considerably more than is required in statute—125% of market value should the developer secure development consent. It has also committed to an extensive programme of noise insulation for homes and schools. A community compensation fund will be developed by an applicant to mitigate still further any environmental impacts and, as I have suggested, a community engagement board has already been set up, with Rachel Cerfontyne appointed as the independent chair. We agree with the Committee that details of the proposals must be worked up through consultation with local communities.

[Ruth Cadbury]

Will the mitigation package and, in particular, the noise insulation be subject to an absolute cap, or will it be subject to the actual noise that people experience, and if they experience the higher level of noise that generates the need for insulation, will it be delivered irrespective of the monetary cap? Also, will it be delivered in advance of the new flights coming in, or will residents, as at present, have to wait up to 10 years for the noise insulation to which they are entitled?

[Jesse Norman]

The answer to that question is, of course, that the package will be developed in consultation with local communities and, wherever possible, with an attempt to respond to the concerns that people have had.

The hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), who is not in his place, asked whether compensation would be targeted to those most affected. The answer is that we are talking about what appears at the moment to be £2.6 billion in commitments, which is ten times bigger than the previous compensation offer made, including £700 million for noise insulation for homes and £40 million to insulate schools and community buildings. Those will be developed in a way that recognises the impacts, and the greatest impacts will be those most affected.

With regard to surface access, we know that Heathrow is already Britain’s best-connected airport by road and rail—a position that will be strengthened by future planned improvements to the public transport systems that serve the area. In responding to the Committee’s call for a written commitment to southern and western rail access, the Government have amended the NPS—a further change of direction in response to the Committee’s work—to set out our clear support for the western rail link and to explain the continuing development of a southern rail access scheme. We are pressing ahead with both, but these are subject, in the usual way, to appropriate planning processes and approvals. Network Rail already has underway a statutory consultation on the development consent order for western rail. The Transport Secretary recently held an event to engage the market more closely on the appetite for a privately funded and financed southern rail scheme. We are not delaying on this.

We also welcome the Committee’s focus on managing traffic associated with the airport. The airports national policy statement requires the applicant to set out clearly how it will mitigate any impact on the transport network and support additional demands that may be created by expansion. We have proposed specific mode share targets for passengers and employees at the airport, which we expect to be requirements of any development consent order. We also support the aspiration of Heathrow Airport Ltd to expand the airport without increasing airport-related traffic. Of course, it should be for the airport operator to demonstrate, as part of any development consent application, how it intends to deliver that goal and how it will, in so doing, mitigate any impact on the public transport network.

The Chair of the Committee said, absolutely rightly, that expansion cannot come at any cost, and we concur. It is important to take a calibrated approach to this, as the Committee has done. We have been clear that we expect expansion to be financed by the private sector without Government support. We also expect the industry to work together to deliver the ambition, set by the Secretary of State in 2016, that airport charges should remain close to current levels in real terms. We will continue to test the “financeability” and affordability of the Heathrow third runway scheme, as will the regulator, the CAA, and we have revised the national policy statement to clarify how the regulatory and planning processes work in this regard, with a considerable amount of further information provided in the final proposed national policy statement. Again, we are grateful to the Committee for its input.

I am also aware of the various representations that have been made in the Chamber that the Government would somehow be liable for Heathrow’s costs, should they decide to withdraw support for the scheme. That point was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Putney this morning and in this debate. To be clear to her, I did not say that those policy statements were the same for all three bidders. I said that they were substantially similar. I made that point because I wanted to show that there was no predilection, as it were, towards one bid over another; they were being treated in an equal way. The language in question creates no obligation on the Government, contingent or otherwise.

Let me be clear that the Government have not entered into any agreement that gives Heathrow the right to recover its losses in the light of any scheme not proceeding, and nor do we recognise any liability for any of the costs that Heathrow Airports Ltd has incurred or will incur in future. Separately, the Government laid before Parliament yesterday a written ministerial statement and a departmental minute that set out—this makes the point the other way—a contingent liability where one does in fact exist for statutory blight, which would commence if the proposed airports national policy statement is designated. That liability is contingent, because the Government have rightly protected the taxpayer by entering into a binding agreement with Heathrow Airport Ltd, whereby the airport will assume the financial liability for successful blight claims if, and only if, the scheme proceeds, thus protecting the taxpayer.

Many hon. Members have rightly raised the question of connectivity and regional impact. We agree with the Committee that the benefits of Heathrow expansion must be felt nationally. We welcome the Committee’s endorsement of our plans for an expanded Heathrow airport to retain existing domestic routes and add new routes. We have made it clear in our response that we will further consider domestic connectivity as part of the aviation strategy, which is in the process of being developed. Colleagues will be aware that consultation on that has recently closed. It will include the Secretary of State’s ambition for up to 15% of slots released under expansion to be used for domestic flights. The proposed airports national policy statement makes it clear that the Government require Heathrow Airport Ltd to work with the airlines to protect existing routes and deliver new connections. This will be examined as part of any DCO application. The Government will also hold Heathrow Airport Ltd to account on its public pledges, including the introduction of its £10 million route connectivity fund.

Airports National Policy Statement

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Tuesday 5th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I am well aware of my hon. Friend’s interest in these issues and look forward with interest to seeing any proposals that come forward.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

How can the Secretary of State say that the cost of expansion will not fall on either taxpayers or airline passengers when the airport and airlines are not prepared to fund the essential transport infrastructure around Heathrow that is needed to address the air quality and appalling traffic congestion we already have, and when the Transport Committee report in March found that the environmental impacts on London and the south-east have not been fully monetised and need to be addressed?

[Chris Grayling]

As the hon. Lady will find when she reads the updated NPS document, that latter point is one of several recommendations from the Committee that we have addressed, and we have added additional information to the NPS.

On the hon. Lady’s comments about access to the airport, I have just given a firm commitment that we should deliver a package as broad as that to support this. One Select Committee recommendation was to strengthen the wording about western and southern rail access, and that has happened; we are very committed to both of those. This is a broad-ranging package that will transform surface access to Heathrow.

Potholes and Road Maintenance

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Tuesday 5th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered potholes and road maintenance.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes, in discussing this vital issue.

On the surface, potholes and road maintenance may not sound like the most appealing or urgent of concerns. However, roads are a reflection of a country’s infrastructure and ability to provide essential services. Good roads are the lifeblood of our country. They connect communities, families, livelihoods and industries. They allow ambulances to reach their destinations faster, citizens to spend less of their already busy lives in traffic, and the police to reach those in need more quickly.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing the debate. Does she agree that potholes not only present a cost, an inconvenience and sometimes a delay to motorists, but are a severe risk to life and limb for people riding bikes? Some 390 cyclists have been killed or seriously injured in the last 10 years as a result of potholes and bad road surfaces.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I entirely agree, and I was going to come on to that point in my speech a bit further down the road.

Today, our roads are unarguably in a state of disrepair that worsens by the day. A brief survey of the facts reveals that the challenges that we face will increase if the Government continue to ignore concerns.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

It is certainly preferable, as the potholes review and other survey work recognised, that it be done right first time. Roads should be reinstated in a way that allows the changes to be durable, and road surfaces should be able to stand inclement weather.

Our overall approach is based on principles of asset management, increasing over time. The Government are investing about £6 billion in the network between 2015 and 2021—about £1 billion a year—including through the pothole action fund. That money is increasingly being used as part of a more strategic, asset management-type approach to the roads, which is important. As part of that, we have looked very hard at how we can help highway authorities to adopt planned and preventive maintenance that treats the asset as such, rather than just respond reactively to problems that emerge. Those principles are already demonstrating benefits in terms of financial efficiency, improved accountability, value for money and improved customer service, and we want to continue to work on that.

As matters are presently handled, there is a formula, and rightly so. We do not think councils should constantly have to apply for the vast preponderance of the funding that they receive from the Department for local roads. They should be funded according to an easier and fairer formula.

[Ruth Cadbury]

Does the Minister agree that the £43 million and the officer time spent because 156 local authorities have to deal with claims from motorists and other road users as a result of pothole damage and injury are a waste of money?

Oral Answers to Questions

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Thursday 24th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

The Transport Committee report on the national policy statement found that the Heathrow north-west runway proposal has little, if any, advantage over other schemes, or even over doing nothing at all, for passenger growth or for the number and frequency of long-haul routes, and that the proposal would actually cut international links for non-London regions and would have little economic benefit to the UK, so are the Government pushing ahead with this hugely expensive and environmentally damaging project?

[Chris Grayling]

When I am ready to update the House, I will of course come back to do so in person. The Committee recommended that the Government progress with their work, and it made a number of very helpful and constructive suggestions about elements to be included within that work. I remain absolutely of the view that airport expansion is necessary for the economy of this country. The important thing is that we deliver it in the best possible way for local communities.

Electric Vehicles and Bicycles

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Wednesday 9th May 2018 Westminster Hall

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I also congratulate my co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cycling, the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), on securing this debate. The purpose of the APPG on cycling is not to be a cycling club; we seek to engage with Government and stakeholders to get more people cycling more often, and safely.

As has been said, cycling has many benefits, public and personal. It reduces congestion, improves air quality, improves personal health, improves mobility for people who are frail or disabled and reduces journey times for those who, like me, are London-based. It improves street design and local trading in town centres and town environments.

I am also a new convert to e-bikes; like the hon. Gentleman, I also trialled an e-bike over the Easter recess, thanks to the Green Commute Initiative. As somebody who cycles fairly regularly and has two and a half bikes myself, I was a little bit purist about such things and wondered if it was cheating, but I am definitely converted. It meant I could do the nine-mile trip between here and home without breaking too much of a sweat, but still get more exercise than I would have done sitting on a train. It was quicker and easier, and the few hills there were certainly seemed a lot less. It meant pottering around my constituency was much easier, and the main thing was that I did not have to wear different clothes, which I normally would if I were getting on my road bike and riding any distance.

I would advise all hon. Members to test an e-bike. Transport for London, through a range of London cycle stockists, is running a test scheme at the moment, and there is nothing in the blurb that says that people must be London residents—although, in fact, most Members of Parliament are London residents some or all of the time. I advise them to try it and have the same experience that my colleagues have already mentioned.

On top of cycling, e-bikes in particular will get different people and different users cycling. Hon. Members have already mentioned older people, those with mobility problems or health problems for whom the energy of a main bike would be too much, and people with balance problems. E-bikes are good for cargo, particularly in cities, and for people in hilly areas for whom cycling is just too much effort. They also extend the commuting distance that normal people can do on a bike. Men in Lycra around London are a different issue, but we are not trying to get those people on to e-bikes; we are trying to get everyone else on to e-bikes.

There is no doubt that the extent of cycling and e-bike roll-out in other countries in Europe has been massive and that the UK is behind the trend, so I have some recommendations for the Government that could help us to catch up. First, OLEV should recognise e-bikes as low emission vehicles, which would unblock some subsidy options that are available to other types of e-vehicles. Secondly, the cycle to work scheme limit should be increased to £2,500 for e-bikes, since very few e-bikes come in below the £1,000 current limit. Thirdly, for registered disabled people, cycles and e-bikes, including e-trikes, should be incorporated into the Motability scheme to provide more mobility opportunities for people with disabilities. Only through a step change in the number of people cycling and using e-bikes will, for instance, Transport for London be able to achieve its target of taking non-private vehicle transport options up from 63% to 80%. If we do not do that in London, with an increased population it will grind to a halt.

I will go back very briefly to electric vehicles. Tesla’s showroom is in my constituency and I have also had the pleasure of looking at the new electric black cab. I have had a test drive in a Tesla, which was absolutely fantastic. I cannot afford it because they are very expensive—they are nice cars—but Tesla is also bringing out a mid-range car soon. Its big concern is the shortage of three-phase electricity. The barriers are not necessarily blockages by local authorities per se. There is an issue about getting three-phase electricity to the roadside or to industrial estates such as Tesla’s base out at Heathrow. There are issues of wayleave, common-law problems of getting access over land and issues of getting access to the high-voltage transmission network.

However, I have to say to the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight), who was concerned about long-distance travel, that with an adequate network of fast charging points, one can take an electric vehicle several hundred miles—across to mid-France—without the journey taking any longer, because with fast phase charging one can charge the car in the time it takes to have a comfort break, something to eat and a cup of coffee. That is perfectly possible.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

As my hon. Friend says, this scheme potentially offers relief from congestion, better local access and better connectivity to Leeds-Bradford airport, and we are very interested to see it proceed.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

6. 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.

[Ruth Cadbury]

A freedom of information request revealed Government analysis that expects nearly a million households to face increased daytime noise if Heathrow is allowed to build a third runway. Will the Secretary of State visit my constituents, tens of thousands of whom will face significantly worse noise if the third runway goes ahead, and for whom no amount of noise insulation will be acceptable?

[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.