Revised Draft Airports National Policy Statement

Debate between Lord Naseby and Baroness Kramer

Thursday 15th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, obviously the draft airports NPS will be the basis for the Government’s decision on the development consent application for a north-west runway at Heathrow Airport. I confess that I live under the flight path, so I suffer daily—I was woken this morning at 5.30, which has been very frustrating after the late hours that we have been here. I have long opposed expansion at Heathrow, well before ever becoming engaged in politics, on national as well as local issues.

It is often taken as given that there is a strong economic case for expansion at Heathrow, but that is exceedingly questionable. I am sure the Minister will be aware that the Davies commission agreed that it was clearly stated that the case for a third runway at Heathrow depended on a hub model of aviation prevailing over point-to-point. However, the shift in the industry is clearly towards point-to-point because, frankly, passengers hate changing planes. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Spicer, that his Chinese tenant is the exact example. People put up with this problematic hubbing, having to change planes and wait for hours in terminals for a second flight, until there is the opportunity to fly direct.

We are in an era where flying direct is becoming dominant. That is one reason for the rise of airports all across the various continents, and for a very fundamental change in the pattern of aviation that passengers themselves are demanding. What we have is a hub airport at Heathrow that is primarily and almost solely functioning on an outdated concept. The passenger forecast for the third runway is that there will be 41 million additional passengers a year, but that 22 million of them will simply be changing planes at Heathrow. I pick up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones: those 22 million contribute absolutely nothing to our national economy. A large part of the investment and the cost that we are carrying is to support literally half the passengers, who bring no specific benefit.

The economic case is also based on an assumption of a direct correlation between GDP growth and an increase in passenger numbers, particularly at Heathrow. That is very simplistic. We got a glimpse into how simplistic it was during the work of the Davies commission when it released the technical documents. I give credit to Justine Greening MP, who, at that time, through a number of FOIs, was able to get more information on the cost-benefit analysis, and it was clear that there really was nothing. Many people think that somehow there had been work with businesses in London to work out what the future demand would be; there was none. They thought that there had been a look at historical correlations; there were none. It is simply meant to be a given that as GDP goes up, there is a corresponding increase in demand for flights out of Heathrow. I say this with a warning, because the rail industry has had to cope with the fact that what it assumed was an unbreakable link between GDP growth and passenger demand for rail has now been clearly broken. For example, in London, the Tube has seen its passenger numbers this year down by almost 4 million. So the economic case is extremely simplistic and very unreliable.

None of the analyses ever included the negative impact on businesses from noise, poor air quality and, above all, traffic congestion, so the work has been inadequate. But, interestingly, even in that inadequate work, the latest piece of work done by the Government shows that a second runway at Gatwick is a better generator of long-term economic benefit than a third runway at Heathrow—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton.

A number of key airlines, including BA—Willie Walsh’s name was quoted just now by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley—have turned against the project because of the charges which they know they will have to pay and then have to pass on in ticket prices. No-one I talk to believes the cost of £17 million, which is often thrown around as the right number for this project. That number completely fails to include any realistic costing of the plans to move and then reinstate the M25 or, alternatively, to tunnel it. Until we get some reasonable costings, it is going to be very difficult to assess this, but £17 million is way too low, and any contractor will tell you that. To break even—even on that understated price—Heathrow will need to require the new runway to operate at 38% capacity from day one. The only way to achieve that kind of increase in flights at Heathrow is to lure flights—especially high-value flights by US airlines—away from Gatwick, Stansted and Birmingham, and possibly even farther afield, which would seriously compromise the viability of those other airports. This issue has never been properly examined and it bodes very ill for regional development.

Heathrow will incur a huge debt load as a result of building the third runway, and the pressure to service that debt means that Heathrow will inevitably focus its new capacity on long-haul popular destinations, where planes can be filled very quickly. That means New York and other near-US destinations, not flights to new developing markets in Africa and Asia. Even the NPS forecasts that the airport will reduce its network of domestic flights to serve, at best, only five domestic airports, compared with the eight that it serves today.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, talked extensively and so well on climate change. To meet the carbon targets in the Climate Change Act 2008, the third runway would require off-setting cuts across our regional airports. Passenger numbers would need to be cut by 36% in the south-west, by 11% in Scotland, by 14% in the north-west and by 55% in the West Midlands. Without that, carbon emissions from aviation would constitute 25% of our carbon emissions allowance by 2050. Again, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, described that far more effectively than I can.

Of course, there are local issues. Getting passengers to and from the airport is a nightmare, both because of the impact on air quality and because of road and rail congestion. NOx emissions and particulates are severe around Heathrow even today, and legal limits are regularly breached. All the local access roads are heavily congested, so dispersal is not even possible. Even the London mayor’s plans for ultra-low emission zones does not solve the problem. In fact, this basically destroys the effectiveness of any of those plans, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, described. She talked about the health impacts of poor air quality, something we are becoming more and more aware of. So there are serious consequences to the air quality impact of a third runway.

The Government have promised that a third runway will lead to no more cars on the road—they do not say that about freight; we will have freight on the road but no more cars. Frankly, that is impossible. Every scheme to provide more rail access from London to Heathrow falls to pieces either because it requires tunnelling on a major scale at a huge cost or because it triggers the level-crossing problem. I will explain the level-crossing problem. In my former constituency of Richmond Park, the position of the River Thames, Richmond Park and the railway lines means that several thousand people can get in or out of the area only by using one of four roads that have level crossings. The rail lines are so busy that the level crossings are often down for 50 minutes out of the hour. A train service to Heathrow, which all agree—if passengers were willing to use it —would have to be a fast train running every 15 minutes with no more than one stop, would in effect close those level crossings completely, trapping the local population.

Transport for London has estimated that providing surface transport to support a third runway would cost £18 million, of which Heathrow has said it would pay £1 million, with the rest to fall on the taxpayer. That includes not a penny for resolving the level crossing problem. No engineer has found any solution to that, so we are talking about the impossible.

Last but not least, noise is a fundamental issue. I was astonished to hear praise for a six-and-a-half hour night flight ban. That ends at 5.30 am, and the traffic between 6 am and 7 am is what drives the community most insane. Also, the airlines constantly fly exceptions, created by some circumstance of weather or another, that always breach their current limits, and that will undoubtedly continue. It is an ongoing problem.

The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, talked about much quieter planes, but the problem is flights coming over in a constant stream so that there is never any relief from the level of noise, so even making planes quieter does not necessarily deal with that problem. There is an additional problem: Heathrow with a third runway will be running planes on two parallel runways. As the noble Lord knows, noise fans, so in the area between those two runways, the fan effect of two planes flying at the same time will be extraordinary. The operation of those two runways at the same time means that areas once affected only by take-off will now have take-off and landing.

[Lord Naseby]

I am not sure where the noble Baroness gets her information from. If one got the information for, let us say, two fighter jets taking off together, one would see that the increase in incremental noise is very small. Surely, since those are fair noisier than the aircraft that I was talking about, her facts are totally wrong.

[Baroness Kramer]

I will ask the Richmond Society to forward to the noble Lord the detailed modelling that has been done to show the impact of double noise on a significant section of the population. He may find that rather interesting.

Opposition to Heathrow comes from the overwhelming majority of residents in south-west London living under the flight path, four local councils and MPs of all political colours that represent that area. My party, the Liberal Democrats, and the Greens have consistently opposed expansion. When any of us hear of the mitigations, we apply that against our own experience. I lived in the area when Heathrow applied for the fourth terminal and we were assured there would be nothing more. Then came the fifth terminal, and we were assured again that anyone was foolish to suggest there would be a third runway. Then came a third runway and we were told, of course, there would be no sixth terminal. Now we hear of a sixth terminal to go with the third runway. This pattern continues regularly. In the same way, the mitigations—noise is a good example —never live up to their billing. Sitting outside—most people have the right to sit in their garden—is not helped by noise insulation inside a house; that works only provided all the windows and doors are closed, with the consequence that quality of life is severely affected.

Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Naseby and Baroness Kramer

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Wednesday 6th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, Amendments 69H, 69J and 69L in this group are in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Bowles, but the group also encompasses Amendment 69K in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Naseby. This cluster of four amendments work extremely well together, and we are very grateful to the noble Lord for bringing in a piece which strengthens this cluster.

Even the unobservant will have noticed that, in a sense, this is about starting to close loopholes. We had a very interesting comment, I think from the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, earlier—he can tell me if I am wrong—talking about the reputation and the failures of the UK to manage money laundering that involves the overseas ownership of property in London. The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, may not have had the opportunity to be here earlier, but we did have Amendment 69 in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Faulks, Lord Rooker and Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, which directly addressed the public register of beneficial ownership of UK property by companies and other legal entities registered outside the UK, in an attempt to speed up the whole process of getting a public register of beneficial ownership.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

I sat through the whole debate on Amendment 69, which took a fair amount of time.

[Baroness Kramer]

I do apologise, but the noble Lord will know then that that issue was addressed at that point in time. The Government gave us an update on the progress they are making towards what we hope will be such a public register. Indeed, I believe the Minister said it was not a question of whether but how there would be a public register. In a sense, that is one of the criticisms of London that hopefully will be closed within a reasonable period of time. We are still waiting on the timetable, but that is indeed what we hope.

However, the noble Lord is absolutely right that whenever issues are raised, particularly when the UK talks of issues around tax havens in other countries, or we on these various Benches talk about trying to get public registers in the overseas territories and Crown dependencies, the answer nearly always comes back, “Clean up your own house first”. Indeed, that is one of the reasons why I and so many in this House support that public register of beneficial ownership of property.

These amendments that I now address follow on that same theme. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, in particular in the debates on the Criminal Finances Bill, being highly critical, comparing London very badly with Jersey. Although we have a public register for companies, it is not one that has any verification system, and he saw that as a very fundamental flaw in the UK system. That accusation comes again and again, whenever we look at trying to do anything with the overseas territories. Whenever we look at any kind of more global activity, the answer that always comes back is: “You say that you’re well in advance of other countries, but look at your own house—you’ve plenty there to get in order”. I would agree that we have plenty to get in order, so let us do it.

The three amendments that I have tabled with the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, deal with various aspects of this. Amendment 69H deals with an issue that has generally been overlooked. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, for identifying it—as noble Lords can probably tell, she is the expert hand in these amendments and has drafted all three. Amendment 69H proposes that trust or company service providers that do not carry on business in the UK and ensures that they may not incorporate UK companies without oversight from an anti-money laundering supervisor. I will not go through the details of each of its provisions, but essentially it makes sure that anti-money laundering authorities can get a grip on a series of organisations—trust or company service providers—that may have escaped notice up to this point in time. It is one loophole closed.

Amendment 69J takes another tack to close loopholes. It recognises that a company can be tracked if it has a UK bank account, but if the company does not, it is much harder to identify that particular company and make sure that the money laundering authorities can give it due and appropriate attention. In the proposed new clause, if an entity falling under the Companies Act 2006 does not have a UK bank account, it will have to provide a fee. The reason it should provide a fee is that it means that the cost of doing due diligence falls not on the UK taxpayer but on the company. That provides every incentive and every opportunity for the various authorities to pay due attention to that company. That is another loophole closed.

That fits brilliantly with the new clause proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Naseby. I will let him explain that because he will understand it far better than me, but again it highlights the importance of due diligence which flows through the first two amendments that I have described. Due diligence is vital to make sure that those entities that are active in the UK have very limited opportunity—or, preferably, no opportunity—to engage in nefarious activity.

Finally, Amendment 69L directly addresses that issue that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, and others. As noble Lords know, we have a public register of companies here in the UK, but the Government have never used a verification procedure. I understand why they have not. When a register is public, it is transparent. Journalists, NGOs, and members of the public have the opportunity to trawl that database, and that provides for many additional eyes to look through the material. That is exceedingly important, but perhaps it is not sufficient. At this point in time, issues of tax avoidance, tax evasion and money laundering have become far more significant—and on a far more significant scale. This is the time to turn to the supervisory authorities and give them the power and the wherewithal —the wherewithal probably being the critical element—to do verification and proper due diligence on that register.

That is the purpose of the three new clauses proposed in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles. They are to close the kinds of loopholes which leave the UK open to regular criticism that we talk about cleaning other people’s houses but we have not done what is necessary to clean our own. Read those together with Amendment 69 and you have a package that makes a very fundamental difference—one I am sure ought to be acceptable to the Government. I beg to move.