House of Commons Standing Cttee on Delegated Legislation (pt 2)

Draft Stansted Airport Aircraft Movement Limited (Revocation) Order 2004

[back to previous text]

Mr. Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con): The more I listened to the Minister, the more I felt that he was not entirely convincing. There was an element of the Government seeking to wash their hands of the problem in what he said. He based his case almost entirely on the fact that Stansted is in a unique position, but the reason for its uniqueness is that, nearly 20 years ago, when my party was in government, we decided in our airports White Paper to make provision to control the rate of expansion at Stansted and to assure local residents that in the use of the airport an appropriate balance would be struck between aviation and local interests. The system has worked rather well because it has allowed Members of Parliament whose constituents are affected by the airport to make representations.
The Minister revealed that local people were not directly consulted. The current framework allows local people to express their views through their Member of Parliament. He should reflect on whether he is recommending the correct option to the Committee.
The Committee does not have to decide only between continuation and revocation. There is a third option, which the Minister's explanatory notes accept, of raising the limit but keeping the current regime in place. Why is he not recommending that course of action?
It is all very well to refer to Uttlesford district council, but the duty of the council is to its own borough, not to the region. The effects of Stansted airport are felt far wider than the borough of Uttlesford. When the Minister talks about local control, he ought to refer to the whole locality and to all the people and communities affected. That is not what is being talked about today. He referred to
Column Number: 8
consultation and admitted that local communities were not consulted. Was there any advertising in local newspapers to make the public aware that he was seeking their views? It appears that that was not the case, but I would welcome his response.
The Minister referred to the section 106 obligation to cover the hiatus period. Has he had a written commitment from BAA on that? In effect, an agreement for an agreement is no agreement. Is BAA committed and has it assured the Minister that it will agree to that obligation?
What adds to our concerns is that, while Transport Ministers are seeking to expand the use of Stansted airport, the Deputy Prime Minister is talking about increasing house building in the surrounding area. Any increase in traffic at Stansted is likely to increase the number of objections and representations made. The present regime, unique as it may be, has served us well for the best part of 20 years. Unless the Minister has convincing answers, we are minded to divide the Committee.

10.12 am

Mr. Paul Marsden: It is no wonder that local people were not necessarily aware of this order, despite the fact that the repercussions are exceedingly great. I welcome the new-found commitment from the Minister to localism. Unfortunately, such commitments do not always produce the desired outcome. We all know that BAA will demand further expansion in future. It is clear from the plans that there will be a third runway in Stansted—whether it is in 10, 15, 20 or 25 years, it will come. Even if Uttlesford district council or anybody else objects, there will be a public inquiry and, whatever the recommendation, the Secretary of State will have the final say. If the Secretary of State is a Labour Minister, he will agree because they have a policy of predict and provide. Regardless of what the Minister says today, that will be the reality.
I should point out that BAA has made real improvements at Stansted. It has a record of 98 per cent. flights on track, which is excellent. It has also reduced the number of noise infringements over the past three or four years. That should all be welcomed. However, as the Minister mentioned, according to option A of the regulatory impact assessment, the effect of not doing anything will be positive—the levels of noise and environmental impact will be lower. That is what the RIA says.
As the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) pointed out—it sticks in the back of my throat to agree with a Conservative, but on this occasion I am happy to do so—in the 1985 airports White Paper, it was made clear that the rationale for having an imposed limit was

''to provide a means of controlling the rate of expansion at Stansted in the light of developments in the London system as a whole and to assure local residents that an appropriate balance will be struck between aviation and local interests in the use of the airport.''

As we have already heard, Members of Parliament should be able to discuss this matter. They should be able to discuss every single airport expansion, because
Column Number: 9
it is not just a small district that is affected—very often, it is much wider areas. In the Thames valley area, more than 1 million people are affected by one airport. In this instance, tens of thousands—if not hundreds of thousands—of people will be affected in years to come.
If there is a third runway, as is mentioned in paragraph 11.42 of the Government's White Paper, instead of an increase of 25 million passengers a year, we could be looking at an increase of 100 million passengers a year. That is four times as much growth. We are looking at this from the standpoint of 2004. We have already doubled what the original rate was back in 1987. If present trends continue, it is clear that there will be catastrophic effects on the local area, local residents—in terms of noise—and the environment.
The Government have failed miserably to address any of the environmental consequences because they have no plan B. I heard the Minister on ''Newsnight'' recently. He was pontificating about a possible EU agreement. That EU agreement is a long way off and will do nothing for the people of Stansted, who in years to come will have to put up with the misery of expansion following the revocation order.
The Independent yesterday mentioned the campaign against Stansted's expansion. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) alluded to that. Mr. Terry Waite, who was one of the Beirut hostages, said:

''If we are not careful what we will have is unbroken concrete from Stansted to the south coast.''

The Chairman: Order. The motion is tightly drawn. It is on the extension of the number of flights in and out of Stansted airport and does not cover the expansion of the actual airport.
Mr. Marsden: I am grateful, Mr. Beard. I was quoting Mr. Waite because the regulatory impact assessment discusses the potential for lower noise and fewer environmental impacts if the airport does not grow. I am simply pointing out that Mr. Waite says that option A under the RIA is his preferred choice. He continues:

''When you see the countryside where they are proposing to build the second runway it is incredible.''

That is the kind of devastation that he is talking about, and which the Environmental Audit Committee has talked about, as a result of the revocation order.
Once the matter is handed over to the district council, whatever the protestations, we will find that it will not have the power that it may think it has. In future years, the Secretary of State will be the final adjudicator, whereas at the moment we enjoy the fact that we can bring such matters before Parliament, that MPs have a right to be heard and that Ministers have to listen. That will be abolished by the order, which removes the provision for limits to be set by Parliament.
Aviation growth will contribute hugely to global warming and will exacerbate the difficulty of achieving reductions in greenhouse gases, which will be vital if we are to avoid the effects of climate change. The
Column Number: 10
Minister and the Government simply do not care about the consequences of the unfettered growth in air passenger numbers.

10.19 am

Mr. Prisk: I welcome some of the remarks and responses from the Minister, but I just want to register a brief complaint that he has made no attempt to inform those of us who have direct constituency interests about the exact timetable for the instrument. The Government are to be commended for issuing the draft order in plenty of time, so it seems peculiar that the courtesy of ensuring that the half dozen or so of us who have a direct and pertinent interest in the matter as constituency Members were not informed. We had to scrabble around yesterday—my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) will concur—to ensure that we could participate.
As the Minister suggested, the order seeks to revoke the parliamentary passenger air traffic movement limits and to allow them to be agreed at local level. I accept that that would reflect the planning and administrative situation elsewhere. Nevertheless, several of my constituents and I have concerns that I hope the Minister will respond to positively at the conclusion of the debate.
First, is it realistic to expect a small rural district council to assert itself with a large, wealthy and locally dominant company? Several people have expressed concern about that—in particular, the Bishop's Stortford Civic Society highlighted it. The letter that it wrote to the Department on 27 May states:

''We are sure that Uttlesford try their best, but in their deliberations about whether to grant planning permission to raise the capacity of the Airport to 25 mppa, it was implied that they could not afford to turn down BAA's application because they lacked the resources to defend their decision if BAA should appeal.''

It underlined that point by stating:

''With the dice loaded so unequally in favour of the developer we question whether the ATM limit included in the planning permission will ever be enforced, particularly as BAA have already announced their intention to apply for permission to expand the Airport's capacity further''.

Given the natural concerns of my constituents and others, can the Minister tell us what steps he has taken to satisfy himself that Uttlesford district council will have the capability to devise and to enforce the limits on its own? What assessment has his Department made of the planning authority's ability to develop and to sustain what is, after all, a technical area of planning policy? In particular, can he tell us what assessment his Department has made of Uttlesford's capability to enforce its ATM limits in any appeal? Is not it the case that the district council would struggle financially to pursue the full legal course available to it without the backing of a Government Department, which it has at present?
Secondly, while it is entirely true that residents of Uttlesford will be able to make direct representations, how will my constituents in East Hertfordshire voice their concerns? In particular, how will the elected councillors of East Hertfordshire contribute on their constituents' behalf? They are not part of the process
Column Number: 11
in Uttlesford. Given that only Uttlesford councillors will be able to speak and vote on the issue, how will the residents in my constituency, whether in Bishop's Stortford, Sawbridgeworth or in villages such as Much Hadham or Widford, be able to voice their concerns? Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us.
At least with parliamentary representation, I am able to voice the concerns of my constituents and question Ministers. The switch to Uttlesford's planning control will inevitably remove my constituents' ability to be heard. On those grounds alone, I regard this as a reprehensible step for my constituents.
My third concern is about the regulatory impact assessment, to which several hon. Members have referred. It says on page 3 that one of the downsides of option A—the status quo option—would be the cost of maintaining a central Government regulation. How much does that cost? How much does the Minister actually expect to save if the order is made? Can he tell us in pounds, shillings and pence?
Fourthly, is not there a benefit in retaining a parliamentary ATM limit to give the Government some leverage in negotiations about aviation and airport policy? We are at an important point in the development of aviation policy. Indeed, I would be perfectly willing to put on record that I commend the Government's willingness to consider a 30-year span. Surely it is peculiar to give up an important lever at the precise moment when the Government are developing their policy and entering negotiations with the leading authority, BAA. Why has the Minister chosen now to give up this order? Did he feel that that needed to be done, or does it relate to an agreement and, if so, what have the Government received in return from BAA?
In conclusion, a parliamentary passenger air traffic movement limit does not limit growth in the short term. It encourages airlines to use larger and more modern aircraft and, locally, that means less disturbance and less noise, so there is an argument for saying that there is a strong environmental benefit from retaining a parliamentary PATM limit.
I have raised a number of concerns held not just by my own constituents but, I am sure, by constituents of hon. Members in neighbouring constituencies. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a thorough and proper answer to assuage our concerns.

10.25 am

©Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 29 June 2004