1. Londontowner asked Sir Alan Haselhurst MP: "Sir Alan, if we don't build another runway at Stansted, won't we need an additional runway elsewhere in the South? If so, then where would you recommend it be located?"
2. Sir Alan Haselhurst MP answer: "I think it is very straightforward, it has to be at Heathrow which is part of the Governments policy and I regret that they chose in their White Paper to put the construction of a 2nd runway at Stansted..." Show more»" I think it is very straightforward, it has to be at Heathrow which is part of the Governments policy and I regret that they chose in their White Paper to put the construction of a 2nd runway at Stansted ahead of the construction of a 3rd runway at Heathrow. I don’t say that for any ‘nimby’ reason, I look at that purely from the point of view of the interests of British aviation and British business. For good or ill Heathrow has become London’s principal hub airport. The Government has now recognised what it didn’t before the consultation document. You can’t have a 2nd hub airport serving the same catchment area and they know this now. Why was Heathrow chosen originally in the 1940s? It’s in the language of the time to be London’s Civil Aerodrome and it rose higgledy piggledy. Had we got our time over again and been able to anticipate the explosion in air travel we might have done something entirely different. And as late as the 1970s there was a project to build an entirely new airport off the coast, what became known as Maplin sands, that scheme was axed by the succeeding government because by then the first oil shock had taken place and people believed that air travel was going to have a real set back. But within 2 years the demand for air travel bounced back and the then Government had to have a look around and that’s why the attention came back towards Stansted, but Heathrow undeniably is the principle airport. The economics of Heathrow are that it benefits from about 30% of interlining, which means almost by definition a very large percentage of people come through Heathrow on a British airline and go out of Heathrow on a British airline. This is not 100% but it enables British Airways, Virgin an others to say to the person in Denver who wants to get to Naples, and there isn’t a direct flight, to say we will give you the best service and will take you through Heathrow without your feet touching the ground or London itself. Some would argue why do we want that business, but I’m sorry that is part of the aviation industry and I’m in favour of British alliances succeeding against others, because on the whole they are rather good. But then people will only come to London if it gives them access to other destinations or if they do business in London they can exit from London to where they wish to visit. Heathrow at one stage had the reputation of being the busiest airport internationally and had the most flights but it has now slipped to about 5th in the league tables because of our lack of capacity at Heathrow and that is not good for the nation. Whatever one says about environmental considerations, which we do have to take increasingly seriously, no one will stop people flying. Yes, you can look at other ways of dealing with it so whilst we are in the business of flying we want London to be attractive to the businessman and not repelling him. Yes, it is important that we develop the 3rd runway at Heathrow and I know that is opposed by people around Heathrow, but equally there are a lot of people that recognise the economic importance and the significance of jobs in that area which is quite different to what is happening in rural Essex where Stansted is. So we certainly need that runway at Heathrow and I’m not sure that we need another in the South East that aren’t already there which could be utilised. It is interesting to see how London City has blossomed to the extent that it has its developing its own business. There are others that could be brought into use certainly for short haul destinations and so on. What I might add to that is we are very bad in this country to providing support and infrastructure. It took 50 years, having decided on Heathrow, it took 50 years to build an over ground railway and now we are repeating the same thing perhaps not quite as badly in relation to Stansted. It is served essentially by a two track railway which is causing the Stansted Express to become steadily less express as the years pass because there is too much congestion on the line. It only takes one train to break down and everything comes to a halt behind it. Its absurd, why don’t we put in the infrastructure. It’s been the case all along. So Heathrow really is by now by default the principal London airport. You can’t replicate what it does, it is in competition internationally with Charles de Gaulle in Paris and Schiphol and with Frankfurt and if we choose to ignore that then London will decline as an economic and business centre and I don’t believe that is in our interests and I certainly don’t believe that Stansted can be a substitute for what Heathrow offers. "Show less«
3. Is this a good answer?    3    0
4. 0 comment   |  Topic: Business   |   Email to friends   |   Nov 27 2007 7:41:11 PM

5. ---

1. MTyrrell asked Sir Alan Haselhurst MP: "Stansted Airport is a gateway to international trading centres for east of England businesses and a major business in its own right providing many trading opportunities for local firms. Economic growth..." Show more »"Stansted Airport is a gateway to international trading centres for east of England businesses and a major business in its own right providing many trading opportunities for local firms. Economic growth is vital to maintaining the UK as a premier world financial centre and to the competitiveness of the east of England with 80 per cent of the top 500 companies having offices located in the airport’s catchment area. Is Stansted Airport and its expansion critical to the region’s economic development? " Show less »
2. Sir Alan Haselhurst MP answer: "Well part of that question is answered by what I’ve just said. I don’t believe that business is the principle beneficiary of Stansted. Obviously Stansted is an economic driver because it has created..." Show more»" Well part of that question is answered by what I’ve just said. I don’t believe that business is the principle beneficiary of Stansted. Obviously Stansted is an economic driver because it has created 10,000 or more jobs. I don’t deny that and we are in the fortunate position that we don’t have unemployment in my constituency nor in the immediate area around. When Stansted has passed a certain level of activity, people are having to be brought in from further and further a field adding to burden of inadequate road and rail network and causing more people to say well now I’m working here can I buy somewhere to live nearer and these are creating pressures which are not being relieved by investment in the local infrastructure. This is a real problem. But yes the economic growth to which the airport has contributed, as some of the service industries, such as hotels and so on, all of that fine its created work for local people but the more it expands now its creating work for non-local people and I am not sure that this is on balance serving the interests of the country as a whole or the East of England in particular. "Show less«
3. Is this a good answer?    2    1
4. 0 comment   |  Topic: Business   |   Email to friends   |   Nov 27 2007 7:38:16 PM

5. ---

1. legaleagle asked Sir Alan Haselhurst MP: "Are you at all concerned that if the expansion of Stansted doesn't go ahead, businesses which rely on the airport, could move to other suitable airports abroad? e.g Schiphol, Holland."
2. Sir Alan Haselhurst MP answer: "Not really, because it is not business in the main that is using Stansted. 90% of air travel generally is leisure and certainly a high percentage at Stansted. You only have to look at the flights that..." Show more»" Not really, because it is not business in the main that is using Stansted. 90% of air travel generally is leisure and certainly a high percentage at Stansted. You only have to look at the flights that predominate at Stansted. Ryanair represents 70% of the business at Stansted, they offer cheap short haul flights to destinations in Europe principally. From a free market point of view I don’t have a difficulty with people choosing what to do but I think they are paying an artificially low price that is generating travel and we have to balance that good, the right of people to travel; for which I support, I think travel is a good thing; against now what we recognise as the environmental cost. I don’t honestly believe the restriction of growth at Stansted is standing in the way of businesses. Yes, some businessmen use the cheap flights but it’s a tiny minority and Stansted has got capacity enough to be able satisfy that. The further you live from Stansted itself the more you get a general acquiescence in the idea that oh yes it’s a good idea for East Anglian's businesses that we have this growing airport, but reality is different. What other destinations inter-continentally which are served or likely to be served from Stansted, we have a few flights to the USA but if you are a business man in London would you come out to Stansted for the one a day flight to New York when if you go to Heathrow you’ve got eleven flights a day by British Airways alone before you add in the American and other carriers. So if something goes wrong you’ve got the added safety of transferring to another flight. I don’t buy into the argument that this is the answer to the business man’s prayer that Stansted should grow experientially - yes some would take advantage, but if there was proper pricing by some of the other leisure travel then there is ample opportunity for business people to fly from Stansted but I think the evidence shows that it is not really businessmen who are supporting that airport. "Show less«
3. Is this a good answer?    6    0
4. 0 comment   |  Topic: Business   |   Email to friends   |   Nov 27 2007 7:32:22 PM

5. ---

1. karenf asked Sir Alan Haselhurst MP: "Are the Conservative Party going to oppose or support the plans of the Government as outlined in the Queens speech of 7 November regarding the planning of major building projects? "
2. Sir Alan Haselhurst MP answer: "It depends what you mean by major building projects. What the Conservative Party have said so far as far as airports are concerned is that they will not support a 2nd runway at Stansted Airport which ..." Show more»" It depends what you mean by major building projects. What the Conservative Party have said so far as far as airports are concerned is that they will not support a 2nd runway at Stansted Airport which is good news as far as I am concerned but they haven’t committed to other things and I don’t think there is any blanket negativity on behalf of the Conservative Party towards all major building projects. There is an opposition to chop down imposition of housing targets. The Conservative Party is saying if elected as Government they will abolish the regional assemblies from which these targets come and will restore to the local authorities the power to set their own targets. This will come as a relief to my district council in Uttlesford, which is grappling painfully with the need to find provision for an extra 4,200 houses which nobody wants but which the administration has to make a decision and whatever the decision it makes will be unpopular. The Party does not wish to see the imposition of these targets and we believe that local democracy should have a greater control of what happens. Whilst not denying that people who are in need of housing, we are already committed to providing thousands under pre-existing targets but particularly in a rural area like Uttlesford and the Braintree part of my constituency as well. What we need are add-on local housing schemes of which we have got a fair number, which are tailored to people that have some connection with the village. We’ve had a number of successful schemes working with the Rural Housing Trust and these do enable the sons and daughters of long time village residents of having to actually have a chance of owning, renting and part owning houses in their home village. "Show less«
3. Is this a good answer?    6    0
4. 0 comment   |  Topic: Business   |   Email to friends   |   Nov 27 2007 7:28:28 PM

5. ---

1. paul576 asked Sir Alan Haselhurst MP: "Alan, We hear a lot about the SSE campaign, but how many of your constituents and constituency businesses are contacting you supporting the expansion and how do you decide who to support? "
2. Sir Alan Haselhurst MP answer: "The answer to that is very few, we had an interesting exchange in the local press recently about the letters, which had appeared. I think in fact the Evening Standard did some investigative work and discovered..." Show more»" The answer to that is very few, we had an interesting exchange in the local press recently about the letters, which had appeared. I think in fact the Evening Standard did some investigative work and discovered that there was a bogus nature to a number of letters. One of the letters quoted was one that had been sent to me. At the time I had looked at this letter and thought shall I answer it because the person writing was actually from outside of my constituency and it had appeared in the local press. I decided on that occasion not, but there had been a previous one where I had been tempted to write back, not to the newspaper but to the person because it was from an address in the constituency only to find that the person and the address did not exist. And when the Evening Standard revealed that there were about 15 or so such letters all of which were bogus, the finger began to point in a certain direction. So I got into an altercation with BAA who thought I was accusing them of doing it so I wrote an article in the local newspaper it struck me as being astonishing that this was Britain, this was not Zimbabwe and people were free to express an opinion, and the idea that they would be frightened of doing so was ludicrous. But that is just the background and no the answer is I only rarely get a letter from anybody who says yes we think this is an undiluted good thing. It is true to say that the Braintree Chamber of Commerce, which is a bit more distant, so they can speak from the luxury of not being over flown and not having any of the disadvantages who see it as an undiluted benefit for business but they don’t write to me. I’ve just had occasional encounters with them but by and large no the correspondence I get is negative. And that confirms the properly conducted referendum in the District of Uttlesford which revealed that 89% of people were opposed to a 2nd runway and that is on a 69% turnout higher than a general election turnout so I’ve no doubt at all that I reflect vastly the majority of opinion within the District and the Constituency "Show less«
3. Is this a good answer?    5    0
4. 0 comment   |  Topic: Business   |   Email to friends   |   Nov 27 2007 7:22:09 PM

5. ---