Davies Commission Report — House of Lords, 2015-07-01
Topic: Transportation
Robin Teverson (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, this is a worthy report but I suppose we could say, "Here we go again —another report on the airports of south-east England and another recommendation for Heathrow". There has also probably been another not very ringing endorsement of such a report. A Statement that says in almost its last sentence: "It deserves respect and consideration", is hardly a ringing endorsement from the Government The Liberal Democrat position is very different from that of the Official Opposition, in that we believe there is no need to expand airport and runway capacity in the south-east. One thing to illustrate that is in the report itself, which clearly states that airports in the south-east will reach full capacity in 2040. That is 25 years ahead. We certainly need to plan ahead on major infrastructure projects in this country but some 25 years ago, back in 1990, I was lucky enough never to have seen an email and I certainly did not have a smartphone. I had also never participated in a videoconference, which is perhaps more relevant. Over that time, Stansted, which has capacity, has increased its ability to take extra flights Yes, Heathrow is full. As the Minister said, it has been full for 10 years. In fact, it has always been full but you manage businesses, as Heathrow and other airports do, by making sure that your fixed assets are fully used. If you have an asset that is not being fully used, you are not managing it properly. Airport capacity will clearly be used as much as it can be and we will find that at Heathrow, as a prime airport in the UK. We would no doubt quickly find that it was true with a third runway as well I now move on to the fourth runway, which the report goes into. There is an illustration here of how the report looks at the future. It says categorically that, "there is no environmental or operational case for a fourth runway at Heathrow" If that is the case, I find it difficult to understand why the third is so important, given that Heathrow salespeople, if they are up to their measure, will make sure that the capacity of the third runway is used fully and as soon as possible Heathrow is irresistible. Asking for a fourth runway is irresistible to the management of Heathrow, as they asked for terminal 5 after terminal 4. What the report really says is that Heathrow is in the wrong place. If the environmental or operational issues are wrong for a fourth runway, a third runway is clearly wrong now On climate change, we can be very proud of a 20% reduction in emissions since 1990, yet airline emissions in the UK have gone up by some two-thirds. Is that compatible or is it a contradiction of policy, given that the Government have, quite rightly, committed themselves to the climate change policies and budgets of the Climate Change Act 2008 On air quality, page 196 of the report states that, "none of the schemes improve air quality compared to a scenario where no expansion takes place" On connectivity, I agree that there is a real issue around regional airports being squeezed out by Heathrow, but the report recommends that the Government should be prepared to use public service obligations. There is nothing in there saying that these should be mandatory On noise, the reports states that, "an independent aviation noise authority should be established with a statutory right", which sounds very strong, but it concludes with "to be consulted" over noise levels in the west. That is clearly another very weak recommendation I have two questions for the Minister. It is said that this autumn’s decision will give a clear direction. Will there be an actual decision in October? Most importantly, the Statement says that, "we will need to decide on the best way for achieving planning consents quickly and fairly if expansion is to go ahead" Will the Minister confirm that that "if" is still an option?