Airports Commission Heathrow Public Discussion Session 3 December 2014 Opening Remarks Sir Howard Davies Chair, Airports Commission I. Welcome and Introductions Good morning. I think we will make a start. First of all, welcome and thank you for coming along. This is a very important part of our process. The process that we are engaged in is a long and slightly complicated one, and so probably it would help situate the discussions today if I just say briefly where the Commission is in its processes. Before I do that, I should introduce three other members of the Commission. There are five of us, and four of us could be here today: John Armitt, Julia King and Ricky Burdett. Phil Graham, at the end, is the Secretary to the Commission and a number of our staff are here; you will see them identified by their badges. II. The Work of the Airports Commission 1. Phase 1: Need The Commission has been working for about two years now. In the first phase of our work we looked at the question of need: whether there was an argument for an additional new runway or runways in the South East. We also invited proposers to put forward ideas for additional capacity if they thought it justified. The conclusion of that report last December was that in our view, looking at all of the range of forecasts, while we did not follow the traditional predict-and-provide model, we believed that there was a case for one net new runway somewhere in London and the South East by 2030, and that that additional capacity and the flight movements associated with it could be accommodated within the legislated climate change targets. That is therefore our planning assumption. We thought it probable that another runway would be needed by 2050, but that is not the focus of our work today. Heathrow Public Discussion Session Airports Commission 2. Thames Estuary Proposal The invitation for proposals produced a surprising number of ideas – over 50 – but we whittled them down to three that we thought plausible, two of them at Heathrow, one at Gatwick. We also decided to do some more work to see whether a whole new airport in the estuary was a plausible alternative. We did a lot of work on that during the course of this year, but concluded in September that it was not. The environmental obstacles, the cost obstacles and the fact that it was in the wrong place for the demand were such as to mean that we did not think we could recommend that option. 3. Heathrow and Gatwick We are left with a shortlist of two options at Heathrow, both of which we will hear about so I will not begin to describe them myself, and one at Gatwick. We are tasked by the Prime Minister with producing recommendations immediately after the next election. Of course, which Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister we will be delivering it to is a matter of some doubt. The Deputy Prime Minister could be Nicola Sturgeon or Nigel Farage or whoever. That said, we will aim to complete the report by the election and address the envelope immediately after it, because the envelope may need re-addressing. That is our objective. Just to remind you, the task that we were given was to recommend what was needed to maintain the UK’s position as Europe’s most important aviation hub. That was the task that we were given; it is sometimes forgotten in the debate. III. Consultation That is the context. This is where are. We have issued for consultation a lot of material recently, and I apologise for the volume of it. It included the scheme promoters’ documentation but also our commentary on it. In some cases we thought that they were being excessively optimistic in terms of cost and other things, and so our assessment, informed by consultants we have appointed ourselves – quite independent of the promoters – is the basis on which we are looking at these schemes. The consultation period is open until 3 February, and as part of that we are holding meetings of this kind, where we seek to get public views – the views of local authorities, Members of Parliament, etc. – to inform our process. IV. Agenda That is what we are doing, and that is why today is very important for us. We have a slightly complicated programme. I would simply appeal at this point to the presenters to be as disciplined as they can be in terms of their use of time. As I say, we will look very carefully at any representations put to us, so if people wish to introduce and say, ‘Look, I want to make three points but there is going to be a fuller document’ that is absolutely fine. In fact, that is what we would hope for. My role and the Commission’s role will be primarily to listen today and to try to keep the proceedings within the framework that we have set out. We begin with the two scheme promoters, John Holland-Kaye from Heathrow Airport and Captain Jock Lowe from the Heathrow Hub, who are going to summarise the schemes themselves. Then we have a number of Members of Parliament who will talk about them, and then we will have some dialogue. The Commission may wish to ask questions; the promoters will wish to respond to some 3 December 2014 2 Heathrow Public Discussion Session Airports Commission of the points made. That will take us through to 11.00 and then I will introduce the next bit after that. Thank you very much. Let let battle commence. Promoters’ Statements John Holland-Kaye Chief Executive Officer, Heathrow Airport Limited I. Preamble Thank you, Sir Howard, and thank you to the Commission. Welcome to all of you for coming and showing that this is an issue that matters to us. It is important, it is complex, but it matters to us. I think that the Airports Commission process has encouraged an informed debate about the role that aviation plays not just in the national economy but also for communities and the environment. I would like to thank the Commission for allowing the space for the full spectrum of views and evidence to emerge. Today is a good opportunity for us at Heathrow to share our expansion plans and to hear the views of our neighbours, the local community and local business. II. The Case for Change Lack of capacity at Heathrow is restricting Britain’s economic growth, constraining exports, and limiting inward investment and jobs. That is why we are having this discussion once more. The airports review is the best, and perhaps last, opportunity to connect all of Britain to global growth. This is a debate about the future of our country: whether we have the ambition to win the race for growth, to help Britain stay right at the heart of the global economy, as we have been for centuries. The Airports Commission has quantified what that means. It says expansion at Heathrow could generate up to £211 billion of economic growth, which is almost twice the annual NHS budget, and create up to 180,000 new jobs across Britain. Today I want to talk about what that prize means for the local communities, businesses and authorities of West London, the Thames Valley and Surrey – our region. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to transform our region through sustainable growth, skilled jobs for local people, career-related training, more apprenticeships, better public spaces and improved public transport. III. Past Mistakes I would like to start by recognising some of the mistakes of the past. I have spoken to local people about our plans for the future and many have pointed to a commitment made by BAA and Heathrow in the past. I have read the community leaflets distributed by the airport almost 20 years ago, which committed to permanently rule out a third runway at Heathrow. I am shocked by that commitment. It should never have been made and it could never be kept. That is not an excuse; it 3 December 2014 3 Heathrow Public Discussion Session Airports Commission is an apology. I am sorry that Heathrow made that commitment. It has hung over the relationship with local communities and has led to a deficit of trust that can only be repaired by demonstrating that we are a different company than in the past. Secondly, I would like to turn to the third-runway proposal that was promoted in the last decade. In hindsight, I do not believe that we did enough to listen to the concerns of local communities about that proposal. We should have done more to reduce noise from aircraft and ensure that those people who stood to lose their homes or suffer more aircraft noise were treated fairly. We should have done more to help local people access the jobs that come from expansion. If there was a sense that economic benefits should trump environmental costs, or that national benefits should hold sway over local disruption, then I am sorry; we got it wrong. IV. Heathrow in the Community 1. Community Activities We have listened and we are responding. Our starting point has been to think about how an expanded Heathrow can fit better into our local community. How can we deliver the economic growth we need in our region in a sustainable way and ensure that those who are most impacted by expansion get the greatest benefits and are treated fairly? Heathrow is an integral part of our community.