Search

Answered by Sir Alan Haselhurst MP

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 »

Answered by Carol Barbone

Stansted does bring important benefits to the local economy but the proposed expansion of Stansted to handle an extra 10 million passengers a year (10 mppa) would not have a major impact on the local ... Show more »Stansted does bring important benefits to the local economy but the proposed expansion of Stansted to handle an extra 10 million passengers a year (10 mppa) would not have a major impact on the local economy one way or the other. It would be primarily to cater for more outbound leisure trips and only 290,000 of the additional 10mppa would be business passengers. It is a question of balance and one of the main difficulties in the local economy is a shortage of available employees to fill the jobs available. Expansion of Stansted would exacerbate this problem, cause more overheating and require airport workers to be recruited from much further afield, including overseas, with implications for housing and other local services. Show less »

Answered by Sir Alan Haselhurst MP

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 »

Answered by Sir Alan Haselhurst MP

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 »

Answered by Carol Barbone

There's only one back yard so far as global warming is concerned so the 'Nimby' argument hardly applies.

Answered by Carol Barbone

80% of all flights are taken by 11% of the population. It's not the annual summer holiday that needs to be curbed but there must be a question mark over whether it is sustainable for a minority of the... Show more »80% of all flights are taken by 11% of the population. It's not the annual summer holiday that needs to be curbed but there must be a question mark over whether it is sustainable for a minority of the population to be constantly jetting off for short leisure breaks to the Continent, simply because its cheaper than a weekend break in the Cotswolds or the Norfolk Broads or wherever. And the reason its cheaper is that airlines pay no fuel duty, no VAT and don't have to meet their environmental costs. So the price is artifically low. This makes no sense either from an environmental standpoint or from an economic standpoint. Show less »

Answered by Tom Watson MP

Click play to watch this video answer

Answered by Carol Barbone

No idea of the number. SSE is not anti-Stansted or anti-flying. It's a question of moderation and striking the right balance.

Answered by Carol Barbone

No-one is suggesting the airport should contract or be closed. The key priority is to develop a broadly-based, diverse local economy which is not over-dependent on any single industry or employer. We ... Show more »No-one is suggesting the airport should contract or be closed. The key priority is to develop a broadly-based, diverse local economy which is not over-dependent on any single industry or employer. We have all seen what can happen when there is over dependency and something goes wrong, for example in the coal-mining towns of Yorkshire, the shipyards of Tyneside or the steelworks of South Wales. We are not predicting Stansted's imminent demise but there are long term risks to every industry and aviation is no exception. The local economy has thrived for more than 200 years precisely because it has been dynamic and broadly based. We should keep it that way and not have too many eggs in one basket. Show less »

Answered by Sir Alan Haselhurst MP

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 »