Heathrow

Adam Afriyie Excerpts

Thursday 7th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

The answer to that question is, because it is a number that we do not recognise, but if there were a better justification for it, it might be that we would. But of course it is perfectly clear that we do expect transport improvements to be made, and we expect the private sector to bear a substantial proportion of the cost.

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

This private company is running rings around the Department for Transport and the Secretary of State, and there is a history of a litany of broken promises, whether to Scotland, regional airports or the Government or on the number of jobs it would create. Why is this clause here specifically for Heathrow when it is clearly indicating that it wants those liabilities paid for should they arise: why specifically for Heathrow?

[Jesse Norman]

Of course these statements were not purely in relation to Heathrow; there were several of them, as discussed, but two have fallen away. All this does is recap a perfectly well-established set of rights it has in law, and nothing has changed from that point of view. The point of the detailed and careful way in which this has been taken forward is to make absolutely clear that, when HAL makes a commitment, it can be held properly publicly accountable for it by due process of law and by agreement with the Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Adam Afriyie Excerpts

Thursday 24th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

10. What estimate he has made of the cost to the public purse of the construction and operation of a third runway at Heathrow.

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

The Government have always been clear that any scheme for additional airport capacity should be financed by the private sector. The Airports Commission concluded that this was a viable way forward. As set out in the revised draft airports national policy statement, independent financial advisers have undertaken further work and agreed that expansion of Heathrow can be carried out without public finance.

[Adam Afriyie]

I thank the Secretary of State for the answer. The report by the Select Committee on Transport on the airports national policy statement said that the Lakeside Energy from Waste plant should be treated

“with equivalent recognition as the Immigration Removal Centres and that the replacement of its facilities be accounted for in the DCO process.”

Will the Secretary of State confirm that his Department has assessed any infrastructure upgrade needed, such as that to roads and powerlines, to accommodate the relocation, and will those costs be met by the taxpayer?

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Adam Afriyie Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

11. 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.

[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.

[Adam Afriyie]

The aviation national policy statement states that about 93,000 more people will be significantly affected by noise if the third runway goes ahead, yet Civil Aviation Authority figures indicate that more than 2 million people will be affected. Will the Government acknowledge that vast disparity in numbers, and will they update the aviation national policy statement?

[Chris Grayling]

Before the aviation national policy statement is brought to the House, it will be updated off the back of work done by the Transport Committee and the public consultations that have taken place—it will be a refreshed document when it comes before the House. The impact of noise on residents around Heathrow depends on an assessment of the rate of arrival of that new generation of aircraft. As we get into the 2030s, we expect no overall increase in the number of people in the 54 dB noise barrier because of the arrival of those new aircraft. There may be a short period in the mid-2020s when there is a small increase, depending on the airport’s rate of growth and the development of the aircraft fleet, but any such increase will be a short-term one.

Airport Capacity

Adam Afriyie Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

The Prime Minister has been very clear that she does not want to force—indeed, I do not think the public would expect us to force—MPs who have long-standing principles of disagreement over this issue to go against their own views. There are different views on both sides. There are senior figures on the Opposition Front Bench and on the Government Front Bench who disagree with this decision. The hon. Gentleman is right that the majority of Members believe that Heathrow is the right place for expansion. Of course, the whole House will, as part of this statutorily defined process, have to vote and approve the decision. I think we should respect people’s long-standing views and not ask them to go against what they have argued in the past.

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

This is a devastating decision—for the national economic interest as well as for my constituents, hundreds of whose homes will be bulldozed, and for the millions of people affected by the very loud noise from Heathrow airport. Notwithstanding that—we could rehearse the arguments for ever—if during the consultation period the facts, the economics and the timescale on which the decision has been based, or Heathrow’s commitment to invest in the project, are called into question, will the Government have an open mind about changing their decision?

[Chris Grayling]

The Government decided very clearly today on their recommendation, which will have to be validated in the statutory process. It must be voted on and confirmed by the House, and that is what will happen. However, we are not entering the process with a view to changing our minds

Airports Commission: Final Report

Adam Afriyie Excerpts

Thursday 26th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Cadbury]

I will continue because I have a lot to cover.

Heathrow Airport Ltd may be winning on the amount spent on PR, but this Parliament has a duty to assess the optimum solution, not be swayed by marketing rhetoric.

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

How long does the hon. Lady think we can continue to assess this? The debate has been running for 20 years. How many more years do we need for this endless theological debate? Will there ever be a conclusion to this debate?

[Ruth Cadbury]

There will be a conclusion if the Prime Minister considers the quicker, less costly and less risky option of Gatwick.

Most people who will be impacted by runway 3—those who will be affected by the change in respite periods and those under the new landing path—do not yet know what that impact will be. British Airways no longer supports Heathrow airport runway 3. The chief executive of its parent company has expressed serious concerns about how a third runway would be funded. Mr Walsh has said:

“The infrastructure is not fit for purpose. The price tag is excessive and cannot be justified on any basis. We didn’t ask for it and we’re not paying for it.”

Business has said time and again that a quick decision is needed. Businesses want to get to and from London, and to and from their markets. Heathrow Airport Ltd is often not top of their agenda.

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, although I shall try not to use the five minutes, to give the Front-Bench speakers time to respond.

I would like to make some remarks about competition and markets, and this weird belief that Heathrow Airport Holdings Ltd, a private limited company owned 100% by overseas shareholders, is still part of our national state-owned infrastructure. It might perform part of that function, but it is not a state-owned enterprise.

First, however, a quick word on noise: Heathrow airport is currently the noisiest airport in Europe. Sixty-eight times more people are affected by noise around Heathrow, south-west London and Berkshire than are affected by Gatwick. If the Davies commission assumptions are correct, in 60 years’ time—I am not sure how we can say with any accuracy what will happen 60 years from now—27 times more people will be affected by noise and pollution from Heathrow than if there was an expansion at Gatwick.

Heathrow Airport Holdings Ltd is a privately owned company. I thank the Minister for his answer to my question about the infrastructure required as a direct result of expansion, but the Government have said they will not spend taxpayers’ money on this. Were they to do so, it would probably end up involving £15 billion or £20 billion, which would equate to a £300 subsidy to a private company from every person in the United Kingdom, so I am glad that that is not happening. On the other hand, Heathrow seems to be thinking, “Hang on, the taxpayer should subsidise us, a foreign-owned private company.” That is unacceptable; I do not think that the public would accept that kind of behaviour.

I hope that we will not decide on Heathrow, because that would not be in the national, regional or local interests, or in our economic interests. Were we to do so, we would be further entrenching an existing market-dominant player. Conservative Members, and probably most others as well, feel that that is not the kind of monopolistic practice that we should be entrenching.

Let us look at the economics. At the moment, it already costs £26 per passenger to land at Heathrow, which is not very competitive. The cost at Gatwick is £8.63. The cost following the construction of a new runway at Heathrow has been calculated at about £30 per passenger, which is not particularly economically viable, given that the price in the rest of Europe is generally between £18 and £20. So let us not assume that an extra runway at Heathrow would be cost-effective or economically beneficial, because that is not necessarily the case.

As I have said, Conservative Members would certainly not wish to entrench semi-monopolies. Let us look at the evidence on competition. When Gatwick put on a flight to Moscow, the price dropped from £700-plus to £350. Surely we believe in that kind of competition. I have a long history in business, and some might argue that business people such as chief executive officers are desperate for expansion at Heathrow. Utter nonsense! What CEOs and other business people are interested in is being able to get on a flight and get to where they want to go, whether from Gatwick or Heathrow. They will choose to fly from wherever the price is lowest and the connection the quickest. So I think those objections can be put to one side.

I want to return to the point about projecting 60 years hence. We cannot predict tomorrow’s weather, so the idea that we can predict what the economic consequences of this decision on Heathrow will be 60 years hence is quite bizarre. I should like to quote the former director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, John Kay, who rubbished the entire methodology, saying:

“The Commission purports to describe in immense detail the evolution of air transport over the next 60 years, even which routes airlines will choose to fly.”

Anyone with an economic or business background will know that that is simply not possible.

The judgment that we need to make today is also about the type of model that future aviation will adopt. We keep talking about a hub. I have written to British Airways, to Heathrow Airport Holdings Ltd, to the Ministers and to several authorities connected to aviation to ask what constitutes a hub. I asked them to show me some sort of model, but none has been forthcoming. This idea that the hub will continue to operate exactly as it does now is a comfort blanket. And even if we do require a hub, like the one with two runways that we have at the moment, no one is arguing that Heathrow should close. The two-runway hub will continue as more modern forms of transport, such as point-to-point transport, arrive. Now, 90% of all the aircraft being ordered by airlines are suited to point-to-point transport and not to the old hub and spoke model.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Adam Afriyie Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady not recognise that when certain taxes are cut, the overall take by the Exchequer increases, as has been demonstrated over the past five years?

[Sheila Gilmore]

We have heard the argument that if we reduce taxes, we get more revenue in. Of course, it is usually heard in relation to the 50p rate of tax, but that was a very poor example. It hardly had any effect, and so many people made their own arrangements before and after the announcement was made on reducing the rate again that we cannot tell what really happened.

It is important that we should have a discussion about the kind of values we want and the kind of society we want to live in. There has been a similar debate north of the border, where we have a Government who are trying to suggest that, although they do not necessarily want to cut taxes, it is possible to have fantastic services without ever putting up taxes. That will also leave the public confused about what can really be achieved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

This was the Chancellor’s sixth Budget, and after a Parliament of unparalleled failure on living standards not seen in decades, today was his final chance to chart a fairer course for the British people. He failed that test. He failed it because the values by which he has conducted economic and fiscal policy for the past five years are not the values that build an economy where we have a dynamic industrial policy and public spending plans that generate more growth, decent jobs and rising living standards with higher productivity. He failed because, by his actions, he has shown that he does not believe in a society where opportunity and assets are more equally distributed to the benefit of all, and inequality is lower. He failed because time after time he has put short-term tactics before a long-term strategy for growth in our green industries. This is the Chancellor who told us he could balance the books without hurting the poor, yet young people have seen the biggest drop in incomes during this Parliament and all he has to offer now is a vision of a low-wage, lower-skill economy drifting out of the EU, thereby damaging our future prosperity even further.

Britain is a better country than this Chancellor gives it credit for. He said that his policies today will tackle waste and inefficiency, but what can be more inefficient than the waste of young talent or over-25s being idle? A Government with real ambitions for our country would be creating opportunities to give them hope with a decent job. He says his chancellorship has been about fairness, but what could be more inequitable than bonuses rocketing at the very top of society, while he has broken his promise on the minimum wage by raising it by a measly 70p, instead of to the £7 per hour by this autumn which he promised last year? He boasts of his record on growth, but the UK has had the slowest recovery from recession of any other developed country apart from Italy and Greece, with the IMF and other forecasters predicting that growth will be lower next year and the year after than this year.

According to the Fraser of Allander Institute’s most recent commentary on the Scottish economy, full-time employment is more than 4% below its pre-recession peak and the total numbers of hours worked in Scotland is still lower than it was before the recession. On this day, when unemployment has gone up in my constituency and risen across Scotland by 6,000, this Government should have had more measures in their Budget to deal with that.

We know that bank lending to small and medium-sized businesses has been falling and that exports are weak, with the OBR pointing out that net trade will make a negative contribution to growth all the way until 2019. Productivity is poor. People are having to take out credit and take on more personal debt to make ends meet. This was supposed to be a recovery based on the march of the makers, yet it has stretched households, who are taking on more debt and shouldering the burden of fuelling growth. This should have been the Budget that addressed structural problems in the British economy, because a Chancellor who wants a credible deficit reduction plan for the next Parliament has to have a plan for more balanced growth and prosperity. The rewards of that growth have to be more fairly shared among ordinary working people than this Chancellor has achieved. But he failed. He failed because not only does he have the wrong plan for Britain’s future, but he has the wrong values for our economy and our society, too.

[Adam Afriyie]

This is the 10th Budget that I have listened to in the House of Commons. The first five led to massive unemployment and a huge deficit, and really damaged the lives of the least well-off in this country. The five under the current Government seem to have led to greater levels of growth, lower youth unemployment, low unemployment overall and a lower deficit. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that in any way, shape or form?

[Mr Bain]

I gently point out to the hon. Gentleman that the emergency Budget and the spending review adopted in autumn 2010 led to three years of hardly any growth at all in the economy, a dramatic fall in tax revenues, the deficit having not fallen or been wiped out as the Chancellor had promised, and debts doubling over the course of this Parliament. That was the reason the economy has underperformed and why this Government are going to leave to their successor the highest deficit in the developed western world. The fiscal policies that this Government have adopted could not have been more wrong.

We need a different plan for public spending and for more balanced economic growth, not the one the Chancellor has offered today. We need a plan for a fairer tax system, with tougher action against those who do not pay their fair share of tax or indeed do not pay any tax at all. It was very troubling to read in the OBR’s fiscal outlook this afternoon that it has doubts about the £5 billion that the Government have suggested they will pull in from the tax evasion measures set out today. For example, the OBR said that some of the specific measures were “unlikely” to generate the extra revenues that were scored in the Red Book.

The test for this Government in their Finance Bill next week is whether they will be prepared to bring in legal penalties for those who evade or avoid taxes so that we can fill the gap of £34 billion of tax that should be collected by the Exchequer and has been foregone under this Government. That is what hard-working taxpayers will want to see in the Finance Bill next week.

Despite the Chancellor’s modest U-turn today, he still intends by 2018 to force through the biggest fall in core public service expenditure since 1938. The cynicism of this Budget is that, by bringing in deeper cuts between 2016 and 2018 and then partially reversing them in 2019 and 2020, we can see that it is the electoral cycle that has motivated the Chancellor more than the cycle of what is good for jobs and stable growth in this country.

Labour has a different and a better plan. It is one that does not jeopardise investment in infrastructure. If we balance the current budget in the next Parliament, then, as the National Institute of Economic and Social Research has said, we would have more growth, more jobs and faster rises in wages—a better plan for Britain.

I welcome what the Chancellor did for the oil industry. With receipts forecast to fall to £700 million in the next fiscal year, there is an even stronger case for an oil resilience fund, which would do a great deal to secure investment and jobs in the offshore sector in Scotland.

We should have had a Budget that raised the minimum wage to beyond £8 an hour. We should have taken steps to encourage the living wage to be paid to as many people as possible in this country. We should have had a higher rate of income tax for those earning more than £150,000 a year. We should have had the opportunity to begin the job of change, but change is coming. A Labour Government are coming, and I believe that the British people will begin that job of change by voting, in just seven weeks’ time, for a Labour Government and for a more equal and prosperous society.

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Afriyie]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I have no time—I apologise. [Interruption.] Oh, I do have time, so I will give way. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain why the Government chose at that time to do the complete polar opposite of what I did as Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, when we had capital spending on flooding and chose to keep people employed in their jobs.

[Adam Afriyie]

Of course we all agree that we want the least well-off in society to do well, and the measures that the Chancellor has taken over the years are beginning to show effect. Does the hon. Gentleman not remember that under Labour’s Budget proposals, the cutting of the deficit was at a steeper rate?

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Nearly every party is agreed on this, apart from some who have said that there is no need to cut the deficit. We agreed that we had to cut the deficit, but we also made it clear that we had to keep people in jobs while doing so. That is why, when I was a DEFRA Minister, we brought the funding forward and made sure that people in the Environment Agency were employed building flood defences.

My argument to Government Members and to the Chancellor is that there seems to be a complete disconnect. Throwing around claimant counts stats and saying that everybody has had to shoulder the burden simply does not ring not true for my constituents. Over the years, there has been an honourable tradition among those on the Government Benches of arguing for the working poor as well as others, but that seems to have disappeared over this five-year cycle. I hope that next time we will have a Government who deal with zero-hours contracts and the exploitation of agency workers, give a jobs guarantee to young people, have the sorts of initiatives that are being carried out by Labour in Wales, and build an economic recovery that benefits everybody, not just those at the top.

Transport for London Bill [Lords]

Adam Afriyie Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

I do indeed pay tribute to the petitioners. The amendments that are in my name and those of others—and those tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), which I support—arise from the views expressed by the petitioners on particular issues.

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have a great deal of respect for him and for the work that we do together in opposing a third runway at Heathrow. However, it seems to me, especially given his opening remarks, that the best thing that he can do is ensure that the question is put as soon as possible, rather than elongating matters, so that Parliament can make its judgment.

[John McDonnell]

The hon. Gentleman and I have worked and campaigned on the third runway issue in close co-operation. I am grateful to him for all his support, and respect him for it. However, I think that the responsibility of a Member of Parliament is to reflect the concerns expressed to him by his constituents, and in this instance—given that we have a general accountability to Londoners overall—by the Londoners who have petitioned against the Bill. That is why the amendments have been drafted very specifically on the basis of the views expressed in the Opposed Private Bill Committee, which were not fully taken into account following the Committee’s recommendations. I had to draft the amendments, in consultation with some of the petitioners, to ensure that I captured their main concerns.

Aviation Strategy

Adam Afriyie Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Alok Sharma]

Clearly, that is exactly what the Davies commission should come up with. I am not suggesting that the CPS’s proposal is the only one in town, I am just highlighting it as a particularly interesting one.

We have waited a long time for a conclusion, so we might as well see what the Davies commission comes up with, but the one thing I would find disturbing in any final recommendation would be a solution that ultimately led to the closure of Heathrow. That would be bad news for business and jobs. I do not agree with the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), who is no longer in his place, about everything, but I do agree with his points about the impact that it would have not just in London but in the western wedge, which covers areas such as the Thames valley and Reading, which I represent. As he said, a report commissioned by a range of local enterprise partnerships covering the Thames valley, Buckinghamshire, west London and Oxfordshire concluded that £1 in every £10 of UK economic output is generated in the western wedge area around Heathrow, and that aviation and related activity at Heathrow supports about 120,000 jobs there. If a new hub airport was to be built to the east of London and Heathrow was to be closed by 2030, because I do not think anybody is suggesting that we are going to end up with two hub airports—

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

My conclusion differs slightly from that of my hon. Friend. I am the Member of Parliament for Windsor, where we are very much affected by our noisy but welcome neighbour at Heathrow, and there is certainly a scenario in which Heathrow could continue to operate as a hub airport if the estuary airport were to take over. This scaremongering about hundreds of thousands of jobs disappearing is not necessarily entirely helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alok Sharma]

I note the point my hon. Friend is making, but the idea that we would have two hub airports operating—

[Adam Afriyie]

Regional.

[Alok Sharma]

Well, let us see what the Davies commission comes up with, but I personally think that it is unlikely that we could operate a system with two hub airports.

The report goes on to say that the closure of Heathrow would put at risk another 170,000 jobs in the western wedge area. We can have a discussion about the number of jobs at risk and about the fact that, if there was going to be an estuary airport, things would not just change overnight. There is no doubt, however, that there would be a huge economic impact in a region that is the powerhouse of Britain in driving the economy forward.

The Davies commission must clearly take into account the economic benefit of any of the recommendations it makes and, of course, the environmental impact. We have to take into account what business wants and what airlines want. If we build another airport, will airlines come? Will British Airways move to a new hub airport? Ultimately, it comes down to the cost to the public purse resulting from any new expansion.

Those who have been in this place for many years will see this debate as another groundhog day in the life of Parliament’s debates on aviation policy. I suspect we will see a lot more groundhog days. Of course, the question is very difficult, but once the commission makes its final recommendation what we want is politicians who will show a bit of backbone and implement the recommendations on expanding airport capacity in the south-east, whatever those recommendations might be. To duck the question for another electoral cycle will do a huge disservice to Britain’s hopes of succeeding in the global race.

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

We are debating aviation strategy today, but a lot of the comments I have heard—particularly about the sticking-plaster solutions for Heathrow and all sorts of other complicated, detailed, short-term fixes—do not deal with the strategy we need for the nation. We used to be a great island global trading nation in the 1700 and 1800s, and we had a fantastic period even in the early 1900s. If we are talking about strategy, we should be talking about a long-term vision for where we want our country to be, and having a new offshore airport is a very good idea for the long-term economic growth of our country.

A short runway at Heathrow would not do it, while an extra runway at Gatwick would not deal with the hub issue. All those small fixes for the short term would just lead us straight back to where we were: putting off the long-term decision again, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) described. I very much welcome the Davies commission. I differ somewhat with the timetable for the reporting and the decisions, but it is right that someone is going to take a calm, long-term view of the situation.

There have been a lot of scare stories saying that, if a new hub airport were to be built over a period of 20 or 30 years, Heathrow would somehow cease to exist. However, we already have regional airports, and Heathrow could continue in that capacity and gradually evolve over time. I must declare an interest, in that I live under the flight path in my Windsor constituency. The biggest challenge is to ensure that, with 480,000 air traffic movements a year, the number of flights does not increase. A second concern relates to night flights. I was involved with the recent Civil Aviation Bill. Thankfully, Heathrow has only 16 night flights at the moment, but with an extra runway, that number would increase massively. I will certainly continue to go on marches and to work with hon. Members across the House to ensure that a third runway does not become a reality.

We need to step back and look at the interests of the nation over the next 50 to 100 years, then make this decision in a cool, calm and collected fashion without focusing on short-term, sticking-plaster solutions. I hope that, when the Davies commission reports, it will have taken a long-term, mature look at the matter. I believe that an offshore airport would solve all the problems, despite the short-term challenges involved in getting it built.

M5 Motorway Accident

Adam Afriyie Excerpts

Monday 7th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend is right to raise that point. It was one that I particularly raised with the local hospitals involved, Assistant Chief Constable Bangham and the Highways Agency, and I can provide reassurance that the necessary support will be in place. Of course the emergency services are used to dealing with very serious and harrowing accidents, but they would recognise that this was a particularly large and challenging one. Although many people in the emergency services have attended many such accidents in the past, there are some accidents that require support to be in place, and this was one of them.

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

Emma Barton lies in hospital in a coma. She lost her mother a few months ago, and she lost her father and sister in this accident. It is easy in these debates to think of such accidents merely as statistics, so I want to put on the record my condolences to any family she has left, and to her friends and other relatives. I commend the tone in which the Secretary of State made her statement today. Will she join me in ensuring that any additional services that may be required for people involved will be provided?

[Justine Greening]

I can absolutely confirm that. I understand that Emma Barton’s boyfriend is with her in the hospital. My hon. Friend’s points underline how for some people this is an unfolding drama: there are some in hospital who, because of their condition, are unaware that they have lost their nearest and dearest. That is another reason why it is right to approach any debate on road safety in an incredibly sensitive manner until the police have had time to conduct their investigation.

Night Flights (Heathrow)

Adam Afriyie Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate on night flights at Heathrow.

The debate is timely because it takes place during noise action week, which is organised by the charity Environmental Protection UK. Noise action week highlights the impact of excessive noise on our communities, and it encourages communities and organisations, including business and government, to work together to find solutions. I hope that today’s debate is a constructive contribution to that goal.

The Government are assessing the noise action plan for Heathrow and will shortly consider the new agreement on the number of night flights allowed at the airport from 2012 to 2017. The Department for Transport also has an open consultation on the Government’s future aviation strategy, “Developing a sustainable framework for UK aviation”.

My position on Heathrow is clear. With a constituency next door to Heathrow, where some residents work, and as a former frequent business traveller, I appreciate the value that Heathrow brings to our area and the importance of the aviation industry to the economy and for creating jobs for the future. I am proud of our engineering capability and our world-class airlines. I want tourists to come to this country, and businesses to come and invest in the UK economy. For that, we need great airports, supported by the best customer service from the airlines.

My aim is to ensure that Heathrow continues to thrive but, at the same time, that we take into account the quality of life of people living and working around the airport—local residents, businesses, schools and community groups. That is why I was delighted that one of the first decisions by this Government was to stop the third runway at Heathrow and to maintain the runway alternation that allows local residents some respite from aircraft noise. I thank MPs in west London, including my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie), who is present, HACAN—Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise—which is an action group representing people living under the flight path, Hounslow council, the 2M Group, the Mayor of London and the then Opposition team responsible for transport, for working with me during the campaign against the third runway.

I cannot commend the Government highly enough on their decision. We did what the previous Government did not have the courage to do. The decision was an example of a listening Government. I was told, when I started on the campaign against the third runway, that the task was impossible—politicians told me, residents told me—but I do not believe that anything is impossible. Being told that only makes me more determined. I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for all she did to achieve that decision.

Today, I wish to address three basic themes. First, is noise, particularly from night flights, an issue at Heathrow? Secondly, are night flights necessary? Thirdly, I have some considerations for the Government on the issue of night flights at Heathrow. My constituency of Brentford and Isleworth stretches from Chiswick to Hounslow Central and Hounslow Heath, and it lies under the Heathrow flight path, so I am well aware of the problems caused by noise, particularly for residents who are frequently woken during the night. I receive lots of correspondence on the matter, and a constituent from Isleworth summed up the sentiment of many people in a recent e-mail to my office:

“As someone who doesn’t sleep easily, I am writing to you to complain about planes landing early in the morning—six flew over this morning at around 4.30 am. This seems like a totally unreasonable time to be woken in the morning.”

As part of my campaign against the third runway at Heathrow, I took the then shadow Transport Minister—now my right hon. Friend the Minister—to Grove Road primary school in Hounslow Heath, where the pupils clearly explained the impact that the aircraft noise, both at night and in the day, has on the quality of their learning.

When we talk about night noise from aircraft at Heathrow, we need to be clear about our terminology. A “night flight” takes off or lands at Heathrow between 11 pm and 7 am. The Government set strict quotas for how many night flights are allowed at Heathrow, but those quotas apply only between 11.30 pm and 6 am. A number of factors influence the number of flights: noisier planes take a higher quota; figures are different during summer and winter; and the noisiest planes are restricted altogether from scheduled take-offs and landing during the night flight period. On average, over a year, 16 flights are allowed per night. No restrictions apply after 6 in the morning—indeed, that is one of the busiest hours of the day. People such as my constituent from Isleworth could, if they are light sleepers, be woken up on many occasions during the night and in the early morning.

Does that really matter? Yes, according to several respected studies. New research from Warwick medical school, published in the European Heart Journal in February this year, studied the experiences of hundreds of thousands of people across eight countries. The study found that chronic lack of sleep produces in the body hormones and chemicals with a severe impact on health. It concluded:

“If you sleep less than six hours per night and have disturbed sleep, you stand a 48% greater chance of developing or dying from heart disease and a 15% greater chance of developing or dying from a stroke.”

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case for a review of the number of night flights. As a resident of Old Windsor, I must declare an interest—I am right underneath the flight path. On behalf of my constituents, I want to reinforce the point that only one noisy night flight is needed to ruin a night’s sleep—it is not about average volumes or levels. One noisy flight can damage a night’s sleep and induce those stress hormones.

[Mary Macleod]

Absolutely, I could not agree more. We want to legislate against that lack of sleep and disturbed sleep. The World Health Organisation and the HYENA—Hypertension and Exposure to Noise near Airports—report from Imperial College London also found that, even if people do not wake up, there is evidence that noise from night flights causes immediate increases in blood pressure.

The latest World Health Organisation guidelines suggest that night-time noise should be kept at no more than 55 dB to ensure no adverse effect on health, which is roughly equivalent to being in a noisy office—certainly my office, although that is because they work so hard. However, more than 20 miles from Heathrow, the noise of night flights can exceed 70 dB, which is roughly the equivalent of driving down a busy street with the window down. The effect is more pronounced given that the background noise level during the night is low. Ironically, this week, owing to the volcanic ash cloud, we might get some respite and peace because of flight cancellations.

Secondly, are night flights necessary? There are no scheduled take-offs between 11.30 pm and 6 am, and the first flight to Heathrow is scheduled to arrive at 4.30 am. Which planes, therefore, are flying to Heathrow during the night quota period, and where are the passengers travelling to and from? Are they really benefiting our local and our national economy?

Around a third of the passengers arriving on the very early flights to Heathrow transfer directly to other flights across the country and beyond, so the economic benefit to our economy of such flights might be limited to BAA and the airlines with which those passengers are flying. This year, a CE Delft report commissioned by HACAN concluded that a ban on night flights at Heathrow is likely to be beneficial to the economy, as the economic costs of the ban would be outweighed by the savings on the health costs of sleep disturbance and stress from night-flight noise.

A European Commission report in 2005 stated that airlines, when restricted on flying at night,

“seem to be able to adapt their schedules and get over slot availability, congestion and connections and fly by day.”

Can we conclude that night flights are operationally convenient for the aviation industry, but not essential?

In the consultation by the Department for Transport on future aviation strategy, it is recognised in the document that

“night noise is the least acceptable impact of aircraft operations”

and that

“it continues to be a major concern for local residents.”

Night flights are not only an issue for UK airports such as Heathrow. No major airport in Europe has a night ban on flights, and many airports, such as Paris, Frankfurt and Madrid, have more night flights than Heathrow. However, rather more than an estimated half a million people are overflown by Heathrow night flights—more than any other place in Europe. Given the dense residential population around Heathrow, surely we should set the standards for other airports to follow, with our residents, businesses schools and community buildings benefiting from best practice in noise control and mitigation.

A report commissioned by Hounslow council from Bureau Veritas demonstrated that, far from leading the way, Heathrow’s neighbouring residents, schools and community buildings receive a worse deal in funding for insulation against the noise of aircraft than people near many other airports in the UK, including Gatwick, Birmingham, Liverpool, East Midlands and London City. The most generous scheme internationally is at Nice airport, which provides support for insulation for those impacted at the 55 dB and above. A similar scheme at Heathrow would stretch from Windsor in the west to Barnes in the east.

Thirdly, I have some issues for the Government to consider. Heathrow airport makes a significant contribution to the local and national economy, which is desperately needed now more than ever. However, the issue is the quality of life for people who live under Heathrow’s flight paths. Their sleep is affected night after night, and their health and ultimately their life expectancy are impacted by noise. Illness caused by sleep deprivation hits business, and is also a major burden on the NHS, as taxpayers’ money is used to care for them. Quality of life and health must be considered, and I urge the Minister to do so when preparing the night flights agreement for Heathrow airport.

Aircraft are becoming quieter, which is welcome and should be encouraged, but should be used to benefit our residents, not as a way of arguing for maintaining or increasing the number of night flights. We are used to conflict in the aviation industry, and I hope that the Government’s future aviation strategy will be a first step in a more productive and professional relationship between Government, industry and other relevant groups.

How far can we go? First, in the short term, like my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray), who has campaigned hard on the matter, I would like stronger enforcement of current quotas, especially for flights that come in early, before 6 am, from the Pacific rim—Hong Kong, Singapore, Johannesburg, Lagos and Kuala Lumpur. Secondly, if quotas are not adhered to, there should be more transparency and publication of which airlines continue to breach quotas, and higher fines for persistent offenders. Thirdly, in an ideal world, and like my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), I would like a ban on night flights. However, I recognise the significant challenge of reducing flights between 6 am and 7 am, and I understand the resistance from business to changes during that period. I certainly do not want the debate on mixed-mode operations to be reopened. There will no doubt be consideration of operational efficiency at Heathrow, whether it is possible to reschedule those flights later in the day, and what impact that would have on Heathrow’s competitiveness against other airports throughout Europe. Landing between 6 am and 7 am allows people time to go home, get ready for work, and be in the City at 9 am for a productive working day.

I would like a commitment from the Government significantly to reduce or eliminate scheduled night flights at Heathrow. I recognise that that may have to be achieved in stages, but we could put a mechanism in place now to assess feasibility, and set reduction targets more regularly. The final step is to fight for the very best noise mitigation for those who are worst affected.

Finally, night flights have a serious implication for the health and well-being of those who live under flight paths, which has an ongoing effect on spending on the national health service. We have an opportunity fundamentally to improve the quality of life of many thousands of people, and we must take that responsibility seriously. In the light of the recent evidence that I mentioned, I urge on the Government stronger enforcement of the current quotas, more transparency on breaches, and stronger fines for repeat offenders. They should consider carefully the issue of night flights as they prepare the 2012-17 night flight agreement for Heathrow; consider whether we can significantly reduce or eliminate scheduled night flights between 11.30 pm and 6 am; and encourage effective noise mitigation and insulation support from the BAA and the airlines. I believe that such action will allow us to create a really strong partnership between local residents, who will have enhanced quality of life and better health outcomes, and a world-leading aviation industry that we can all be proud of.

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

I want to say a few words to urge the Government to take action in a certain direction. As a long-time campaigner against the third runway and for a reduced number of night flights, I very much welcome the work by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers) both as Minister of State and in opposition as shadow Minister to ensure that the third runway did not proceed. The policy approach and the way in which it was adopted were bold, courageous and elegant, and they reflect her status.

On night flights, I understand that a lot of work is being done to review, research and consider the evidence, and my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod) drew out two key issues. First, there is an impact on the economy around the airport and on the economy at large if thousands of people are struggling with health concerns because they are woken during the night.

Secondly, we should consider carefully whether night flights are necessary. There may be a commercial way of shifting flights in the early hours of the morning, between 4 am and 6 am, to a little later in the day. On behalf of Windsor, I urge the Government to consider the evidence carefully, and as a former shadow Minister for Science and Innovation, I am keen that that is done. If the Government have more bold and courageous policies in them, they should try to reduce those flights, not necessarily immediately, but over a period, because I suspect that any economic disbenefits would be overcome by the economic benefits for people who live and work around the airport.