Night Flights: Impact on Communities

Debate between Sarah Olney and Ruth Cadbury

Tuesday 8th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point and I thank her for intervention. What we are hearing from all parts of the House—well, certainly all the parties on the Opposition side of the House—is that night flights pose a real risk to the physical and mental wellbeing of thousands of Londoners and other communities across the country of all ages.

That brings me to Heathrow expansion. The Conservative Government’s constant mixed messaging and refusal to rule out Heathrow expansion is causing further anxiety for my constituents. Just four weeks ago, the former Prime Minister voiced her support for a third runway at Heathrow, having previously stated she would even support a fourth being built. That followed her predecessor, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), stating that he would lie in front of the diggers to prevent such an expansion. I would therefore appreciate it if the Minister clarified the Government’s current position in his remarks. Will this Government, the third Administration in as many months, rule out Heathrow expansion?

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

I thank my neighbour, the hon. Member for Richmond Park, for securing this debate. The overflying flights into Heathrow go over her constituency before mine. Does she not agree that we need to be concerned not just about Heathrow expansion meaning a third runway, but the possibility that the airport will try to get more flights on the existing two runways in breach of the 480,000 cap? It could of course do that if it did away with alternation, which provides respite to our residents, and had more flights during the night-time period.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

On that point, will my hon. Friend give way?

Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [Lords]

Debate between Sarah Olney and Ruth Cadbury

Report stage & 3rd reading
Monday 22nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

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

The benefits and disbenefits of the proximity to Heathrow airport are two sides of the same coin for my constituency. The issues of air space management and, crucially, noise pollution are of great importance, but this Government —and, I have to say, most previous Governments—have been slow and not done enough. I do not want airspace modernisation being used as an excuse to enable yet more flights into Heathrow, resulting in more hours and days with continuous noise, and yet more traffic congestion and air pollution.

The Civil Aviation Authority is the key statutory authority governing aviation, but it has few powers to control noise, or, for that matter, any other environmental objectives such as the climate crisis and the impact of emissions, all of which are subsumed beneath the objective of safety. I have worked for many years—long before I was elected to this place—with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and I support his amendment to the Bill to include in the CAA’s remit a duty

“to reduce, minimise or mitigate…noise”.

I regret that it has not been accepted by the Government.

There is a growing body of evidence—referred to in the recent report by the Independent Commission on Civil Aviation Noise—which cites the health and other impacts of aviation noise, from hypertension to cognitive impairment in children. To clarify, in normal times 70% of flights arriving at Heathrow come over my constituency. They are locked into a gradually descending final arrival path. Roughly two thirds of my constituents live within the area of significant noise disturbance, and the other third would do if runway three were to go ahead, or, for that matter, if the CAA approved additional flights by allowing planes to join the final approach late, from the north or south.

In the last 12 months, my constituents and I have noticed a difference to our daily lives, with a 90% cut in arrival flights over our homes. We know that for Heathrow to go back to anything like normal operation, the current noise-free days cannot last, but when it comes to airspace changes, communities affected by aircraft noise should at least be treated with respect, be consulted and have their views treated seriously.

The pandemic has exposed not only how much our noise environment is dominated by aircraft noise, but also how much our local economy has been dependent on the airport. Unemployment in communities around Heathrow has risen by 150% on average, and that is while many people are still furloughed and not yet adding to the unemployment figures. This shows the urgent need for support for our aviation communities, as previous speakers have mentioned. We have been promised an aviation recovery strategy for nine months, but all we have had is silence; yet, aviation is the sector that will take the longest to recover.

To conclude, whether it is on noise or aviation jobs, this Government do not seem willing to listen and act to support airport communities.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) [V]]

It is a pleasure to be here, speaking in the Chamber remotely, at the Report stage of this very important Bill, which the Liberal Democrats have supported all the way through. The provisions it contains are long overdue, particularly those on airspace modernisation.

We welcome the opportunity for the Government to take powers to improve the use of airspace for the benefit, yes, of the aviation industry, but also for the communities who live around airports, as the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) just spelled out in her excellent speech. I, too, represent one of those communities —Richmond Park. We have long been plagued by excessive noise from aircraft. There has been some welcome respite during the pandemic and the lockdown, but my constituents are fearful of what may happen in the future, especially if the Government go ahead with their stated plans to allow expansion at Heathrow. I impress on them that they have the opportunity to put my constituents’ fears at rest on that matter.

We support the airspace modernisation plans in the Bill. However, I reiterate what the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said: if not through this Bill, then at some time in the future, the CAA ought to be given the power to consider the impact of noise on local communities when designating airspace. It is such an important issue because of the impact that it has on mental health, on physical health, on people’s ability to sleep and on people’s ability to go about their daily lives. That is highlighted to me so often by my constituents. Again, it was discussed very eloquently by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth.

I also support what the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington said about the impact that climate change is having and the need to give powers in that regard to the CAA. That is a really important point. The Government are not yet being clear about how they expect the aviation industry to contribute to their drive towards net zero. It is absolutely essential that we get more clarity on how that will be achieved. Aviation obviously has an important role to play in our economy. It has had an exceptionally tough year, and we know from announcements made only today that the future of aviation continues to be very unsettled. We look forward to more direction from the Government about how they plan to build back better in aviation.

The Liberal Democrats support this Bill and will continue to support it through its remaining stages.

Free Travel for Under-18s: London

Debate between Sarah Olney and Ruth Cadbury

Wednesday 8th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Cadbury]

Absolutely. We keep hearing in this House how universal credit and the other benefits just do not keep up with the real cost of living in London. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

We have covered the inequality issues, but the decision is also technically complex and costly to administer. As I say, 30% of young Londoners are entitled under national regulations to free travel anyway, and so will continue to have that right. That includes those on free school meals or other benefits, and those with special educational needs and so on. But there is currently no system in place in London for working out which children qualify. Indeed, any such system would be more complex than any in England, with seven fare zones and over a fifth of children crossing borough boundaries to get to school. Will the home council administer the scheme, or the one where the school is based, or will TfL or the schools administer it? We do not know.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

The hon. Lady mentions that many children will have to travel quite a distance to school. Does she share my concern that those distances will now be completed by car journeys, particularly in the outer boroughs such as ours, instead of bus journeys? That takes us backwards in our quest to reduce car journeys and emissions in the capital.

[Ruth Cadbury]

I absolutely agree with my other honourable neighbour. She is absolutely right, because while London has the lowest car ownership in the UK, it does not take a lot of additional cars on the road to create extra congestion. That would send all the wrong messages and be completely contrary to the messages the Government are trying to bring in about alternative travel.

The Government expect this new system to be agreed and up and running in a matter of weeks when staff are already under huge pressure. I do not believe the Government have considered the logistics, and with no precedent for changing the concessions, there is also no way of knowing how many under-18s would still pay to use public transport. TfL expects a demand reduction of only 1% to 2% in the morning peak if these proposals were to be implemented from September, reaching only 5% by January, so the proposal is not even going to achieve the Government’s aim of reducing demand significantly.

TfL is willing and able to work with local authorities and schools on a range of measures to address demand, such as staggering start times, capping numbers on buses, and encouraging walking and cycling where possible for those who live near school, whereas this proposal, which might hit the already disadvantaged hardest, might only reduce demand during the morning rush hour by 1% to 2%.

The Minister might say that children should cycle, but even when new segregated cycle routes are in place, I challenge her to find many 2-mile to 5-mile home-to-school journeys that can be done by an 11-year-old, wholly on segregated cycle paths, including crossing major junctions or on quiet streets like in Hackney. Many boroughs are not implementing these schemes anyway. Kensington and Chelsea seems somewhat reluctant.

Furthermore, many low-income families do not own a bike, many homes have nowhere safe to store a bike and not everyone lives in a place where it is safe to walk to school. Those walking longer distances are at risk from those preying on vulnerable children. One mother said to me that the advantage of the bus is the CCTV, so the groomers and the robbers do not tend to use them. Many London children travel long distances to school, beyond the reach of the bike.

Heathrow Expansion: Surface Access

Debate between Sarah Olney and Ruth Cadbury

Tuesday 28th February 2017 Westminster Hall

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

May I also congratulate the hon. Lady, my neighbouring MP, on securing this debate, so soon after being elected. Does she agree that many minds would be put at ease by knowing not only that Heathrow will not need to increase road access but that the crazy proposal to expand the M4 from four lanes to eight between junctions 3 and 2 will be pushed into the long grass as a result?

[Sarah Olney]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. We really need to see detailed plans of the surface access strategy before we can properly consider the consultation.

On 23 February, the Environmental Audit Committee published its follow-up report to the Airports Commission report, looking at carbon emissions, air quality and noise. The report directly quotes the Secretary of State for Transport’s evidence to the Committee. He said:

“the air quality issue, even around Heathrow itself, is about the traffic on our roads.”

In his statement to the House of Commons on 2 February, the Secretary of State said:

“Heathrow airport will be required to demonstrate that the scheme can be delivered within legal air quality obligations.”—[Official Report, 2 February 2017; Vol. 620, c. 1182.]

It seems crucial therefore that the questions surrounding surface access links to Heathrow airport are resolved before any undertakings are made in relation to air quality targets. The Environmental Audit Committee agrees, stating in one of its conclusions:

“The Government has not yet published a comprehensive assessment of the infrastructure requirements of an expanded Heathrow, including an outline of costs, responsibilities and accountability. The Government must publish such an assessment and consult on it before publishing a final National Policy Statement.”

Will the Minister today confirm that his Department is working on detailed plans for surface access upgrade, in response to the Environmental Audit Committee’s report, and that those will be made public before the consultation period ends? I am sure he will agree that no meaningful consultation can take place on the ability of Heathrow airport to meet its landside traffic pledge or its air quality targets without publication of those plans.

[Ruth Cadbury]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right about the need for the Government to be clear. Yesterday I went to Hounslow civic centre to see the Department for Transport’s exhibition on the proposals there and talk to very senior and expert officials of the DFT about the surface access plans. I was surprised that they could not answer questions about the expectation of traffic increases, given the different types of traffic that will be going to Heathrow should expansion go ahead, with a 47% increase in air traffic. Does she agree that that makes the consultation somewhat of a sham?

[Sarah Olney]

I thank the hon. Lady for once again underlining the importance of making available these plans to the public in order that a meaningful consultation can take place.

Details of these plans may well affect how people respond to the consultation. One project being discussed as part of the surface access plans is the southern rail access project to improve rail links to Heathrow airport. My constituents living in Mortlake and Barnes will be particularly interested to know whether rail upgrade plans will increase the length of time that level crossing gates block the roads in their area. One current estimate is that Mortlake is currently blocked for three quarters of an hour, every hour, to allow trains to cross. Residents are entitled to know whether the plans for Heathrow expansion mean that level crossing gates will be down for even longer. That will surely affect how they respond to the consultation.

Of particular interest to those who live not only in my constituency and the surrounding areas but much further afield is the cost of surface access upgrade and how that is to be funded. In the absence thus far of any detailed figures from the Department for Transport, our best guess of the cost of surface access upgrades is that provided by Transport for London, which estimates the cost at between £15 billion and £20 billion. Heathrow has committed to meeting just £1 billion of that cost, leaving a black hole of between £14 billion and £19 billion. I have twice challenged the Secretary of State to tell me how that shortfall will be funded, but both times he has responded only to say that he does not accept TfL’s figures. That is all very well, and I eagerly await the publication of his Department’s own estimates, as requested earlier, but he has failed to answer the key part of the question about who will pay for that cost.

The business case for Heathrow expansion rests on delivering £61 billion of benefit to the UK over 60 years. That number has already been substantially revised downwards from Heathrow’s previous estimate of £147 billion over 60 years. If it should be proved that up to £19 billion of costs have not been brought into consideration, the business case for expanding Heathrow weakens even further. Should Heathrow airport be required to fund the bulk of the surface access upgrade itself, it may find it difficult to interest investors and shareholders in its revised business case. If the costs of funding upgraded surface access should fall to the taxpayer, that may affect the level of support that Heathrow expansion is currently enjoying around the country. The public are entitled to ask whether or not that additional £19 billion could be better spent elsewhere, which is why it is vital that these detailed plans are available before the end of the consultation period.

One other point I would like to make is about freight. There are warm words in the national policy statement about increasing the number of cycling and walking journeys made to the airport and of moving passenger journeys on to public transport.