Transport Select Committee
Oral evidence: Surface transport to airports, HC 516
16 November 2015
Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 16 November 2015.
Members present: Mrs Louise Ellman (Chair), Robert Flello, Mary Glindon, Mark Menzies, Huw Merriman, Iain Stewart, Graham Stringer, Martin Vickers
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Robert Goodwill MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport, and Sacha Hatteea, Deputy Director, Airport Capacity Delivery Division, Department for Transport, gave evidence.
Q169 Chair: Welcome to this session of the Transport Select Committee. Could we have your names and positions for our records?
Mr Goodwill: I am Robert Goodwill, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Department for Transport and, in this regard, the Aviation Minister.
Sacha Hatteea: I am Sacha Hatteea. I am the deputy director in charge of airport capacity delivery at the Department for Transport.
Q170 Chair: What would you say are the main challenges facing airports that want to improve surface access and transport for the airports in their area?
Mr Goodwill: The challenges faced by airports are not as large or insurmountable as challenges faced by other sections in our transport structure. By and large, we have a good choice of access to airports; indeed some have an amazing choice of different types of access. At Heathrow airport, for example, there is underground, heavy rail, National Express coaches and vehicle access, and of course High Speed rail and Crossrail will be in there as well. I believe there is certainly potential for improving surface access—particular airports have particular problems—but generally I would say that we have a good choice of access. The investment that this Government have put in, and will put in in the future, will only improve the situation.
Q171 Chair: You have spoken in a very general way, Minister, but what about the problems that individual airports face in looking to maximise access to them? Do you think this is something where a national plan should be involved, or should it be left entirely to individual airports?
Mr Goodwill: It is interesting that you are focusing on airports with more than 1 million passengers. Many of the airports that do not come within the remit of this particular inquiry are probably under 1 million passengers because of some surface access problems. You just have to look at Manston, which is no longer operational, and Durham Tees Valley or some of the other airports around the country, where one of the factors in those airports not being successful is, I would suggest, lack of good access, particularly through public transport.
It is important that as airports look to the future they look at where they can capitalise. There are particular areas around the country where I visit airports and they say, “We would like this, that and the other,” and the Government are responding to those demands. Indeed, part of the aviation policy framework is for each airport to produce a master plan, updated every five years, and in collaboration with their airport transport forums to look at their surface access strategy—how, for example, they can make their modal shift from cars to public transport, and how they can address particular challenges with respect to staff. It is often forgotten that quite a lot of the people who travel to airports are staff. In the case of Heathrow, for example, 25% of the journeys are by staff. There is more low-hanging fruit in terms of the daily journeys that people make, in relation to car sharing and so on, than maybe the once-a-year journey where it is probably more difficult to try to affect people’s choices.
Q172 Chair: Let’s focus for the moment on passengers—people who want to fly from airports—and let’s look at the airports that are within our remit. You are giving the impression that you think everything is okay. Is that right, or is this an area where you think there should be a more national perspective, or that you as a Minister should take more interest in what is actually happening in airports? For the moment I am focusing on people who want to fly from airports and not the staff. We will come on to that as a separate issue.
Mr Goodwill: It depends how wide a circle you want to draw around your airport in terms of the journey. In my constituency in north Yorkshire, we are probably more than 60 miles away from the nearest airport; therefore, for example, the A64 junction improvement just outside York would probably be one of the concerns I had if I was driving to Leeds Bradford airport. Similarly the unpausing—if that is a word—of the electrification of the trans-Pennine route will be a positive aspect for people from my constituency wishing to travel to Manchester airport. Indeed, many of my constituents travel to Manchester even though it is much further away than Leeds Bradford because there is a rail line running directly right through to the terminal at Manchester airport. The choice that people make about the airport they use will often be affected, and sometimes it may even be the major factor, by how they or their family can get there in order to travel. If you are looking at travel to airports, you have to look at the whole country’s transport infrastructure.
Q173 Chair: Does that mean there should be a national plan to deliver effective access to airports?
Mr Goodwill: We have national plans. We have the roads investment strategy. We announced a number of major projects last December on key strategic routes in the country, many of which will be routes that people use to access an airport. We have, for example, a national plan in terms of rail—the high level output specification. Indeed, one of the four priorities within that high level output specification is access to ports and airports.
Q174 Chair: But does that mean, Minister, that you think the system is efficient and sufficient. Do you think all of it works effectively?
Mr Goodwill: We are putting unprecedented amounts of investment into the classic rail network and the Highways Agency network, and we have made money available to local authorities for investment in their networks. We are of course also embarking on the High Speed rail project which will link three of our major airports—Heathrow airport, via the Crossrail connection, right into Manchester and Birmingham airports. The overall transport strategy of the country will benefit many people who make journeys that start at home and end at an airport.
Q175 Chair: Does that mean that you are satisfied with the current system in relation to delivering the best possible surface access to individual airports? You are giving us a general picture of Government policy and what you are saying is correct, but I am asking whether you are satisfied that that is enough to deal with the issues affecting individual airports.
Mr Goodwill: I am sure the Committee knows that nine out of 10 UK residents who were surveyed in March 2014 said that they were very or fairly satisfied with their journey to the airport on their last flight, with 55% saying that they were very satisfied.
Q176 Chair: Does that mean that you are satisfied? I want to know if you are satisfied.
Mr Goodwill: We can never be satisfied that the transport infrastructure in our country is as good as it might be. Indeed, when I go to specific airports they raise particular problems in terms of access to that airport. One example is Leeds Bradford airport in Yorkshire. They do not have a heavy rail connection to the airport. The public transport option from Leeds central station is a bus, which is a shared bus with other passengers who are not using the airport. In my view, it is not that easy to find the bus. I am sure the Committee will be pleased to know that, when I travel to airports around the country, I specifically ask my officials to organise my travel so that I use the mode of transport that people themselves would use, so that I can have the passenger experience—I am not sitting in the back of the ministerial car reading papers. I was on the Yorkshire Tiger bus from Leeds station up to the airport, and I have travelled to Heathrow airport on the National Express coach, which is the option that many people on lower incomes would use. I have used the underground in that regard. I have travelled to Luton and Stansted airports using public transport. It is important for Ministers, and I am sure for members of the Committee—to sample the passenger experience. Generally speaking, the feedback we get—
Q177 Chair: But that is not the question. The question is, do you consider that the current arrangements work and are effective in relation to individual airports?
Mr Goodwill: In the majority of airports, the passenger experience is good, as the statistics show, but that is not to say that we cannot do more in terms of improving public transport access, in particular to some airports, and improving ticketing such as Oyster or other contactless types of payment. We need specifically to address one of the problems that has been raised with me: if late night flights are delayed after the last train has left, what do we do for passengers who may be stranded at an airport?
The point I am making is that this Government are investing unprecedented amounts of money in our rail and road infrastructures, and of course pushing ahead with High Speed 2. That is not to say that there are not specific issues that have been identified at specific airports. We need to look at them and see what can be done to improve them. Almost every airport will have a wish list—in some cases a short wish list—of things they would like to see to improve their connectivity and to get people in and out of the airport in a more efficient, reliable and environmentally-friendly way.
Q178 Iain Stewart: Minister, you mentioned Leeds Bradford as an example. That is a case study we have been looking at and had some evidence on. There are problems there and the most likely solution at present is a new access road, but there are concerns that it will just move the traffic problem a few miles down the road. There is an option for a heavy rail link, which you alluded to, which would bring wider benefits to the area. I am not asking you to comment specifically on the options but it is a good example of who decides these matters when there is a wider regional benefit. Who makes the decision? Who pays for it? In the context of the devolution agenda, is this something that the new devolved bodies would take ownership of?
Mr Goodwill: First, I have been to Leeds Bradford on very many occasions. I used to fly from there when I was in the European Parliament so I well know the connectivity problems. Leeds has been remarkably successful despite the fact that there is no heavy rail connection. The nearest rail stations are Guiseley and Horsforth, but the links from those are poor, so most people try to get to Leeds central station and then use the half-hourly bus.
You say there are wider regional benefits. The Leeds Bradford heavy rail connection is not quite the same as some of the other heavy rail improvements that would have a wider regional benefit; in places like Luton, Stansted and Gatwick, augmentation to the rail network and improvements to stations will benefit the wider community. Generally speaking, the view would be taken that, if a transport investment project would benefit only the airport, the airport would be expected to be the one that primarily stepped up to the mark with the money for investment. If there were wider benefits to the overall community or the region, I am sure the airport would make that point and would wish to engage with central Government, if it were a Highways Agency or a Network Rail project, or with local government, or the wider combined authorities that we are going to have springing up across the country, to ensure that they see it as a priority for public sector investment. We need to be very careful that if we put public sector investment into airport connectivity we remain within the rules in terms of EU state aid. By and large, this is not a Government that is likely to be erring into those difficult areas.
The city council in Leeds and the West Yorkshire combined authority are about to commission work to investigate a wide range of potential options, including a heavy rail link from the Harrogate line. Progress with this work will be reported through Leeds City Council and the West Yorkshire combined authority in due course. Colleagues who represent seats in that part of the world have already raised with me the importance of looking at the work that can be carried forward.
Q179 Robert Flello: It is surely fair to say that the system is a bit of a hotch-potch of possibilities. Some airports you can realistically get to only by road. There are other airports where there is a choice, providing you do not mind sitting on an underground line for an hour or so waiting to get into the airport—that is if you can actually get into London in the first place to get the underground. The whole thing is a complete hotch-potch of all sorts of things. Why do you seem to resist the suggestion that has been made so far, that what we need is a proper, integrated plan that looks at the whole of the UK’s airports, whether they are ones the Committee has drawn a fairly arbitrary line on or not? Citing statistics about people’s pleasure or otherwise in making the journey is going to be immediately skewed by the nature of the mode of travel they have chosen. For example, a constituent of mine in Stoke-on-Trent who wants to fly to somewhere in Latin America is not going to be able to drop into East Midlands airport down the road and get a flight because there aren’t any. They will have to go from a certain airport, which then means they will have to make a decision about what time of day they want to fly; they will then have to decide whether to get the train into London and then either the express or underground line. It is an absolute mess. Why do you seem hesitant, or resistant even, to having a proper integrated plan that looks at all these factors? It will not be easy—I accept that.
Mr Goodwill: I am tempted to say that one man’s hotch-potch is another man’s choice.
Q180 Robert Flello: But there is no choice, Minister. Realistically there is no choice on most of these airports. There is one possibility—at best two possibilities. If you are taking an early morning flight out of Manchester on a Sunday, you are driving; you are not taking anything else because there isn’t anything else available.
Mr Goodwill: Other factors also come into play: for example, whether it is a single business traveller who might find the train a more realistic option, or a family travelling with an awful lot of luggage, pushchairs and everything else, in which case the journey to the airport would be much easier by car than trying to switch between modes with all the paraphernalia that people might want to take on holiday. Indeed, at a number of airports, as well as airport parking, there are some very enterprising companies providing a good service that allows people to park off-site, ferrying them to the airport and, at the completion of their holiday or business trip, picking up their car.
The Airports Commission made it quite clear that we need to improve the use of our existing airport capacity around the country. In some cases, for point-to-point travel, where more destinations are being served by more regional airports, the ideal solution for people is to make that choice. In other cases of course, people make longer journeys, and I know that Manchester airport has been successful in attracting some longer-distance operators. There are new aircraft like the Boeing Dreamliner and the Airbus A350 that allow more long haul point-to-point journeys on smaller aircraft. Very many people wish to access a hub. Of course, one of the problems for people who, like me, live in the north of England is that there is not a connection to one of our hub airports—Heathrow and Gatwick seem to be the two airports where connection flights go in. They find there is not a connection, and that opens up a business opportunity for companies like KLM or Emirates to take people to other hubs.
There is a strong argument that it benefits UK plc to keep those connections within the UK rather than having them further afield. Of course, that is why the Airports Commission embarked on its role and why, if we get additional capacity at Heathrow or Gatwick—a decision will be made very soon on that—we will see more opportunities for people flying into one of the London airports to be able to fly further afield. Around the country, different airports provide solutions to different transport problems. Some of the very small airports are not within your remit, but they provide solutions as well. The aviation policy framework and airports’ master plans identify their particular issues. In a market economy where airports compete with each other, the transport providers who get people to and from airports compete with each other and airlines compete with each other. We have a good, dynamic situation in the country. I am seeing new routes and increasing passenger numbers at our airports. We are seeing better ways for people to get to airports for better connectivity.
Q181 Robert Flello: You do not think there is a need for a plan, because it might interfere with the market?
Mr Goodwill: The market will deliver what customers want. I am not a great fan of central Government dictating from above. There are big projects like HS2 and big decisions like runway capacity in the south-east, but I like to see a dynamic aviation sector, which is what we have, competing and driving down fares, improving connectivity and choice of routes. That is delivered here in the UK better than in many countries around the world where they have had a master plan at national level and tried to control how the whole situation operates.
The money will follow the passengers. The airlines will fly to the destinations that people want to fly to, and they will use the airports that passengers find it convenient to get to. Key to passenger convenience is having a choice of modes of access. Whether we have light rail, metro or underground—whatever the choice might be—the more choices there are for people to get to the airport, the more competitive the airport will be.
Q182 Chair: Do the Government have a policy on modal shift?
Mr Goodwill: We are very keen for people to move from the car to public transport. Indeed, the figures, which I think we have already provided to the Committee, show that that is happening.
Q183 Chair: You have shown us those, but how does that fit in with what you have just said, which is basically that the market should operate and people have a choice about what they do? Is that compatible with the Government having a policy of modal shift?
Mr Goodwill: Passengers make a choice as to whether they use their car or public transport. They will make that choice on the basis of having good public transport connections. In many of our successful airports we have good connections; indeed, in many of our successful airports there are stations in the airport. One of the great benefits of High Speed 2 is that we will be able to connect Manchester, Heathrow and Birmingham through stations that are in the airports. In the case of Heathrow it will be the Crossrail connection, which will be a very convenient connection.
Q184 Chair: Is that the Government trying to influence a policy of modal shift rather than just leaving it to the market? I am just trying to work out where the Government stand on this, and how you would assess the success of your policies.
Mr Goodwill: If you give people a good public transport option, they will take that option. If the public transport option is slow, unreliable or dirty, they will not use it. Modal shift is moving in the right direction, and we have seen more people using public transport to access airports and fewer people choosing to use their cars. We must be getting something right if people are choosing to use that particular mode.
Q185 Chair: The Department would see making sure that those public transport options are there as part of their role.
Mr Goodwill: Absolutely. That is why we are putting so much money into investing in our transport infrastructure; why we are building Crossrail, following the good work of the previous Government; why HS2 is connecting airports; and why electrification is taking the trans-Pennine route into Manchester airport. It is all about giving people choices. It is about carrot and stick. I would rather that people used the public transport option because it is attractive, cost-effective and reliable, than that they said, “Well, the only reason I’m using public transport is that we’re being forced to use it because of exorbitant car parking charges.”
Q186 Chair: Does that mean that the national network’s national policy statement should be more specific in identifying means of linking with ports and airports?
Sacha Hatteea: On your point about the Government’s position on encouraging modal shift with regard to airports and surface access to airports, as part of the airport master plans and the surface access strategies, the airports are asked to look at setting policies and frameworks for how they are going to move people in greater numbers towards public transport. All of them do that, and that is one of the reasons why we have seen the change, a shift over the last decade in terms of a reduction in car journeys and an increase in public transport journeys to almost all the airports we are talking about. The Government will continue to encourage the industry to move in that direction.
Q187 Chair: As well as encouraging, does the Department actually monitor the effectiveness of airports’ plans in relation to modal shift? Is that monitored to see if it is achieving the right results?
Sacha Hatteea: The framework as set out encourages an airport consultative committee to be set up, which involves localised—
Q188 Chair: I want to know how that is assessed. Does the Department monitor the results in relation to modal shift?
Sacha Hatteea: The Department has obviously been looking at the stats in terms of how the public transport versus car traffic mix has been changing at airports. The airports report on it and obviously we are looking at that and seeing a decreasing trend. In terms of a policy that encourages movement in that direction, the direction of travel is moving from a multitude of car visits towards public transport. To use one example—
Q189 Chair: Are the Government monitoring it? That is what I am trying to establish.
Sacha Hatteea: The Government monitor it in terms of looking at the stats and seeing where the numbers are moving over a period of time. It does not have a monitoring enforcement role.
Q190 Chair: But does it monitor it?
Mr Goodwill: We carry out modelling in terms of predicting where we need to invest. The Department, Network Rail and Highways England look at information on current and future road and rail schemes, taking into account such things as capacity, congestion and crowding. Airport growth is a factor that is included in that modelling.
Q191 Huw Merriman: My question touches on what has just been said. I was interested in how the Department factors in airport accessibility when planning new transport projects. To take HS2 and Crossrail as an example, although I think I am right in saying that HS2 factors in directly Manchester and Birmingham but not East Midlands, and Crossrail factors in Heathrow but not City airport, I am interested in how those decisions are made; and also whether there is the opportunity for airports directly to fund to get a spur to their airport.
Mr Goodwill: There will be a station at Toton, yet to be finally confirmed, so there will be an opportunity for people who wish to access East Midlands airport. Indeed, the draft route for HS2 actually goes underneath East Midlands airport and will be a good connection into East Midlands.
There is always the argument—we have had it with Sheffield, Barnsley and Rotherham—as to whether we should take the rail line right into the middle of the town or the middle of the airport, or whether we should have a more regional connectivity hub. Certainly in terms of Heathrow, which will have eight trains an hour with a very quick connection via Crossrail, Old Oak Common station—the only station between Birmingham and London Euston—will provide very convenient, quick and efficient access to Heathrow airport. As I said, Birmingham and Manchester will be connected.
As airports plan their capacity and investments, they will look at how they can augment connectivity, and the Government will look at road and rail schemes to make sure that that is addressed. If you go to Edinburgh, the new Edinburgh tramway runs into their airport. That is just the sort of project that means the connectivity is improved and that people who wish to use the airport can do so without having to use their cars. Indeed, a number of airports are starting to charge drop-off fees. I am not sure if the Committee have a view on that, but it is another way that one can nudge behavioural change. Previously a drop-off at the airport had no fee, but a number of airports, including Leeds Bradford, have a £2 or £3 drop-off fee. That not only raises revenue for the airport and helps the airport with the cost of security—drop-offs are a particular security issue—but also makes a little additional argument for using public transport to get to an airport.
Q192 Huw Merriman: In terms of City airport and Crossrail, did City airport approach the Department and say, “We would like Crossrail to go all the way to our airport,” and was the response, “Are you willing to contribute towards that?”, or does that not happen in reality?
Mr Goodwill: I was not in the Department at that time, so I was not privy to those conversations. Of course, City airport has the docklands light railway, which is a very convenient way of getting to the airport, which has carved itself out quite a niche in terms of the business traveller with its very quick security access. I made this point at the start: we are not talking about a hotch-potch; we are talking about different airports attracting different segments of the market. London City airport has a very good segment carved out in terms of business travel, people who want quick access through security and people who need to fly to particular destinations—there are now flights to the US on the smaller Embraer business jets which provide that service. They are going head to head with the business jets; not only are they becoming very expensive, but, from a business point of view, flashing your wealth with a business jet is not necessarily the way businesses want to be seen.
Q193 Huw Merriman: I want to ask a question that I have asked in previous sessions. It picks up on your point that, if you give the public a good public transport option, they will choose it. Do you feel that the airlines do enough to give the public transport options? For example, they are very quick to try to sell Hertz rent-a-car, but they are not very good at trying to layer in public transport so that you can buy the ticket while you buy the airline ticket and, therefore, in a way, the passenger is nicely locked into public transport.
Mr Goodwill: I am probably going to get into trouble now by saying that if you arrive at Heathrow it is not made quite clear to you that you could get a National Express coach or an underground ticket. They are very keen to sell you tickets on the Heathrow Express. Part of choice is having good information on which to base it.
One of the problems in selling combined tickets is the fact that, generally speaking, the Network Rail ticketing system is a three-month system. You cannot book tickets more than three months in advance, whereas people book holidays and other travel longer in advance. I have to say as well that if, for example, I am flying from Heathrow and start my journey in Yorkshire, there is one big advantage of taking the British Airways connecting flight into Heathrow: if I miss my connection because there are problems on the connecting flight, it is a British Airways problem. If I miss it because the east coast main line has a problem or there has been a suicide on the track, it is my problem. One of the areas where I would like to see more improvement in terms of better connectivity is through-ticketing, so that one can purchase a ticket from York to Los Angeles including rail and underground, but that means that there has to be better co-ordination between the different transport providers. And who picks up the bill? If one misses one’s plane because of a London Underground problem, would London Underground be expected to pay for the replacement flight? There are contractual situations that need to be looked at. If it was Virgin west coast main line and Virgin airlines, maybe there would be fewer problems in terms of through-ticketing. Key to getting people to look at their entire journey would be to buy a through ticket, and also looking at Smart ticketing and the extension of Oyster, which is already coming in the new year at Gatwick and, hopefully, soon after at Luton. We are looking at how we can make through journeys more effective.
It is not just about rail lines. At York station, it does not tell you where the buses are. Transport providers are often quite careful not to show other transport providers’ options. With the exception of the Whitby service, where there is no train from York station, none of the other bus services that are run in competition with rail services are flagged up. Maybe to an extent we are a little bit in that situation—airports do not want to undermine their connecting flights, in order to have the whole cake and not just the biggest slice.
Q194 Chair: Should anybody have responsibility for making information available to the public about what the travel options are?
Mr Goodwill: Information is widely available and the internet is a wonderful thing. There is a challenge in terms of members of our community who do not have access to the internet. There is a problem for people who complain about the cost of a walk-up rail fare because they could not buy the ticket a week early because they do not have the internet. The provision of information about travel choices, ticketing and everything else is very important. What has worked very well—I hold up London as an example—is where transport providers have opened up access to their data to allow innovation, and such things as apps and smartphone applications can be used to enable people to navigate their way through the different options.
My view would be that, with ever greater access to the internet and to mobile smartphones, we are in a good place in terms of looking at transport options. The challenge is when people do not have access to that technology, and it does not just apply to aviation but right across the whole transport network of our country. If you do not have access to the internet, you do not then have access to cheaper tickets or alternative ways of travel. That is something that I am very conscious of and I wish I had a solution for it. It is often down to grandma asking her grandson to sort out the ticketing, but not everybody has that at their disposal.
Q195 Mary Glindon: In relation to modal shift, which is very important for getting people out of cars and on to public transport, what is the Department doing to liaise with bus and rail services on how they can provide greater capacity to facilitate modal shift? What is the situation in relation not just to the infrastructure for roads and rail but to the capacity of rolling stock and the provision of adequate buses that can take luggage and so on? All those things are important to progressing modal shift to public transport.
Mr Goodwill: The first point to be made is that airports will set their own mode share target. As we have seen over recent years, it is moving in the right direction. More people are taking the option of public transport rather than using their cars, which is good from the point of view of congestion on our roads and the environment. We have not touched on the whole issue of air quality, but air quality around airports is often affected by people using their cars both to go to the airport and for other journeys around the airport rather than necessarily by aviation itself. If we provide reliable, clean and cost-effective public transport solutions, whether that be bus or train, people will take that option. That is why we have put in the investment. In terms of coach travel, for example—I am a bit of a fan of coach travel as coaches are made in my constituency—we have seen Heathrow airport itself become a hub for coach travel. Many people, particularly students and those who may be of more limited means, see coach travel as a way of getting to an airport. We have seen increases in services; for example, Heathrow has 200 or more services a day by coach from 154 pick-up points. That provides good travel via coach to get you to the airport. Gatwick has 150 services from 90 pick-up points, Stansted has 140 services from 38 pick-up points and Luton has 217 services from 30 pick-up points. I could go on. Providing a service generates demand, which means that more services are provided.
For rail, the Thameslink programme will deliver new state-of-the-art trains on the line between Brighton, Gatwick and London by 2016—next year. By 2018, those trains will start operating on two new direct services connecting Gatwick to Peterborough and Cambridge following completion of the Thameslink programme. In 2019, Crossrail will start running to Heathrow airport. The completion of the northern hub, further north in Manchester, will enable new services to operate in north-east Lancashire and west Yorkshire, from Bradford and Halifax to and from Manchester airport. Things are moving in the right direction. Where we have successful airports that are expanding their numbers of operators and passengers, transport links are expanding and responding to that. We have a good story to tell, because more people travelling means more demand for transport, which means better services, investment in vehicles and more destinations being served. As I said at the start, sadly the airports that do not have that level of connectivity are the airports that are failing and losing trade to the ones that do provide good connectivity.
Q196 Mary Glindon: All the things you have mentioned seem very good, but, as you said, Minister, airports that do not have that connectivity have problems. What proactive work is the Department doing in relation to helping other airports gain capacity through public transport? There are wonderful things happening around the south-east and the north-west, but, as the Minister knows, there is also the north-east. While Newcastle airport is served wonderfully by the metro system, not everyone is on the metro. That is just one example. I do not know about the effects further north. The issue of changing people over to a different mode of travel will also affect normal travellers who may not be going as far as the airport but are using that bus or train to take them to work and are suddenly invaded by all these people with cases. It is really important that there is actual Government support for increased capacity on the other modes.
Sacha Hatteea: To take road and rail in particular, the investment programmes associated with them, as part of developing the forthcoming road and rail investment strategies, do a number of route studies. They take localised evidence in terms of growth, whether it be from an airport or elsewhere, and consider that as part of developing their investment strategies for the future. In the process we go through, we look at it via mode but including the output of other modes, and the growth that is taking place in those other modes being an input into them, to develop where we think the best use of infrastructure development will be over five-year cycles. It is taken into account in both background growth and localised growth.
Mr Goodwill: Newcastle airport is a good example of an airport that has public transport connection via the metro. I used the metro the last time I went there just to experience it, and it was great. We are also investing in road infrastructure in that part of the world. The western relief road on the A1 bypass is a notorious pinch point, and money is going in there. At the Tyne tunnel end we have put money into the Silverlink roundabout and the Testos roundabout. Money is going into projects there, and into the A167 Cowgate junction improvement in Newcastle. All those improvements to the wider transport infrastructure will benefit people who travel to the airport. We need to be very careful not to draw a line around an airport 10 miles out and say that it solves the problem. First, I would argue that if you are in Durham city centre you are probably better off taking the train and the metro, but if you choose to use your car, you need to know that investment is going into the Highways England network to enable those journeys to be more reliable.
Q197 Graham Stringer: You said some time ago that it is the Government’s policy to use the extra capacity in regional airports to help alleviate congestion in the south-east. How are you doing that?
Mr Goodwill: A number of factors are helping in that regard. One is the increase in the use of other hubs. Looking at Dubai in particular—
Q198 Graham Stringer: But what are the Government doing?
Mr Goodwill: The great thing about the aviation sector is that it is provided in privately run airports with, in the main, privately run commercial airlines.
Q199 Graham Stringer: Is that a long way of saying, “Nothing”?
Mr Goodwill: Government are responding where airports have connectivity issues by putting in the investment. In the case of Manchester, I am very pleased that we have unpaused the electrification of the trans-Pennine route to enable more reliable and better journeys to that airport. As we replace rolling stock, we need to look at how rolling stock will accommodate people with luggage—a point that was raised earlier.
Q200 Graham Stringer: But that is part of the national rail strategy that Network Rail is doing. I was asking a very specific question, and unless you can give me an answer I will take the answer to it as, “Nothing.” You also said earlier that airports would be expected to pay 100% of the cost for new transport systems where they were the only beneficiary. Where is there an example of that?
Sacha Hatteea: I do not have one to hand.
Q201 Graham Stringer: That is a bit odd, isn’t it, Minister, when you have just told us that that was the basis for it?
Mr Goodwill: I can give you an example of one where I would expect that would be the case, and that is heavy rail at Luton. There is a short heavy rail solution for Luton. That is one where it would be difficult to argue that there was any beneficiary other than the airport.
Q202 Graham Stringer: Are there any schemes involving passengers?
Mr Goodwill: It is heavy rail as opposed to light rail—a passenger service to enable people to travel by that rather than use the shuttle.
Q203 Graham Stringer: And the train does not go anywhere afterwards.
Mr Goodwill: It does not go anywhere afterwards. It is just a link to the airport. In many cases there would be other knock-on effects for the wider travelling public.
Q204 Graham Stringer: Yes, there would be other beneficiaries.
Mr Goodwill: Therefore it would be down to negotiation between the Government, or the LEP, and the airport itself. If you look at Crossrail and Heathrow, one of the challenges of building Crossrail 1 was how you ensured that those who benefited in the City, in Canary Wharf and at Heathrow made a contribution to the cost. It is sometimes quite difficult to join the dots on that particular picture. For a situation where a small piece of infrastructure was only for the benefit of the airport, another example I could give you would be at Birmingham where the new High Speed rail station is slightly further away from the airport than the current Birmingham International. There could be an ongoing discussion about the contributions to that passenger transit system, which could be any one of a number of ways of moving people—a people-mover of some sort—and how those negotiations could take place.
Q205 Graham Stringer: How do you do an assessment of whether the airport is 100% the beneficiary, given that we have established it is either a very small number or no number at all? How do you do that negotiation and by what criteria?
Mr Goodwill: It would be down to negotiation between the Government and the airport.
Q206 Graham Stringer: Fine. Can you tell the Committee what criteria the Government would use for the negotiation?
Mr Goodwill: A starting point would be the number of passengers who use that infrastructure solely for going to the airport and who are making other journeys. One example is Robin Hood airport at Doncaster, which has the east coast main line very close to it. If there was a suggestion at some point in the future that a station to serve that airport would be a good idea, it would be difficult to argue that that station benefited many people other than those who were using the airport.
Q207 Graham Stringer: It might be possible to argue that it benefited the Yorkshire area economically and that that should be taken into account because jobs would be created.
Mr Goodwill: That is where the local enterprise partnership or the combined authority would come in. We have one already in south Yorkshire, so the South Yorkshire combined authority would work. That is where negotiation would take place.
There is currently a £120 million scheme being taken forward to improve Gatwick airport station. The scheme has had provisional approval subject to a satisfactory final business case being submitted by late 2016-17. The project has funding from Government of £50 million, from Network Rail of £30 million and from Gatwick airport of £30 million; and from the Coast to Capital local enterprise partnership, a £10 million commitment from the local growth fund. That is an example of partnership between Government and Network Rail. Those negotiations will have taken place on the basis of who benefits from the investment.
Q208 Graham Stringer: I was trying to get at the criteria. I understand the number of passengers using it. I wanted a definite answer, yes or no, on whether the economic benefit, which in that case is to Sussex, will be taken into account in the criteria used by the Government. That is the end of a negotiation, but I would be interested in understanding how the Government assess those investments.
Mr Goodwill: In that case the local enterprise partnership committed £10 million.
Q209 Graham Stringer: I understand that; you said that.
Mr Goodwill: It would be on a case-by-case basis.
Q210 Graham Stringer: I understand that as well. It is the basis of the criteria—how you weight economic benefit against passenger use, passenger time saved or whatever. If you do not know, you can send us a note.
Mr Goodwill: The point I was making is that every case will be different, and the airport will of course be working very hard to make the case for the wider economic benefit to the area, because every penny that comes in from central Government, a local enterprise partnership or a combined authority is a penny less that comes from the airport. They will be making the case very strongly about the wider economic benefits. As ever with these cases, it comes down to some hard-nosed negotiation as to who ends up chipping in what to the particular pot. There is no magic formula that you can apply. It will look at the cost-benefit ratios of the investment. It will look at the wider transport-related improvements.
I have a document here that says, “The transport business case published in 2011 clearly describes the approach followed by the Department when making major investment decisions for all modes of transport. The document is intended to inform those with a general interest as well as those who are involved in developing proposals for investment and a wish to understand better the underlying decision-making process.” In other words, there is a dynamic negotiation process and all those who take part in the negotiations will be keen to identify who that investment benefits. The airports themselves will be keen to stress the wider economic benefits, and I suspect that on the Government side we will be keen to stress just how much it will benefit the airport, and a compromise will be reached. If no compromise can be reached, the investment does not go ahead and that would be unfortunate.
Q211 Graham Stringer: Where do you think the priority is nationally for improving access to airports within the range of this study? Which is the worst case and where do the Government think money should be spent to improve access?
Mr Goodwill: Which is the worst airport in the country for access?
Q212 Graham Stringer: No. Which is the priority for the Government to improve the access?
Mr Goodwill: Public transport has to be the priority, because that is sustainable.
Q213 Graham Stringer: Which project is it?
Mr Goodwill: There are a number of projects around the country where airports want to see improvements to their public transport connections.
Q214 Graham Stringer: What do the Government see as the top priority?
Mr Goodwill: We look at projections in terms of passenger numbers. We look at overcrowding and congestion. For example, the Gatwick service is one where we have seen that there is congestion. We have already put investment into the station and into signalling, and more investment is going forward. Each airport will come to the Government on a case-by-case basis and make proposals for improving the public transport solutions. Airports like people travelling by public transport. It is reliable and efficient. Okay, they do not get the revenue from the car parking, but the figures have shown year-on-year increases in the number of people using public transport options as opposed to using their own cars. If we can continue to invest in rail, and we have unprecedented investment in the Network Rail network with electrification and new rolling stock and everything else, it will ensure that that trend continues.
On a case-by-case basis, every airport I go to has something they wish us to invest in, whether it be Leeds Bradford wanting a better rail connection or Luton and Stansted wanting more quick services. There are areas where we need to improve the amount of capacity on rail networks. Gatwick is already sharing a very busy line and we need to put more investment in. At Heathrow they are very keen that we continue with our investment, to make sure that Crossrail is delivered and that High Speed 2 gives them a connection via Old Oak Common. There is not an airport in the country where they will not have a wish list of either road or public transport investment that will improve that airport. As long as the numbers of passengers using those airports continue to increase, they can make a very good case to central Government to help them with those investment plans, particularly if they show a wider economic benefit to the whole area or a wider benefit to other passengers using the same infrastructure for non-airport related use.
Q215 Graham Stringer: What is the Government’s top priority in terms of those airports?
Mr Goodwill: The Government’s top priority is to deliver a transport infrastructure in this country fit for the 21st century, and by putting unprecedented investment in High Speed rail and roads we are doing that and delivering that. The wider transport benefits of all these projects—
Graham Stringer: I was trying to get at which surface transport scheme, but either you do not know or we will move on.
Q216 Chair: Where is the priority? That is what Mr Stringer is asking you.
Sacha Hatteea: Can I answer the question in a slightly different way? In terms of the recent road investment strategy, and what we have announced about the schemes we are doing that will affect airports, we have talked about delivering smart motorway technology on the M23 between junctions 8 and 10. That will improve the situation for Gatwick. Improvements on the M56 will improve the situation for Manchester, including a smart motorway upgrade between junctions 6 and 8. There will be better access to East Midlands airport, with schemes being developed on the M1—a smart motorway between junctions 19 and 26 and dualling the A453 from Nottingham. There will be an upgrade to junction 6 on the M42, which will make for better access to Birmingham airport. There are improvements on the M25 between junctions 10 and 16, on the M4 between junctions 3 and 12 and on the Heathrow slip road, which will all improve access to Heathrow. There is due to be a technology upgrade on the M11 between junctions 8 and 14. That will improve the situation for people on their journey to Stansted. Those investments come to £1.75 billion over the period 2015-20.
Q217 Chair: Are those the Department’s priorities? Mr Stringer wants to identify what the priorities are.
Sacha Hatteea: Those were the priorities that we identified in the roads investment strategy in relation to where we are investing in the roads network on road enhancement between 2015 and 2020. We are currently going through the start of the process for the second roads investment strategy. As part of that, there will be localised route studies performed by Highways England. Local bodies expect to be part of the consultations on those and feed into them. There are also six strategic studies taking place on some of the biggest and most difficult areas to solve in the network from a capacity point of view. All those things will take into account airport capacity and where growth on the network is likely to take place. What we are not doing is saying, “This airport is the most critical one.” We are saying that we are considering the road and rail networks in their entirety on each five-year rolling cycle, and as part of that we are looking at where the investments are best placed to be made.
Q218 Chair: Do you want to give us a more specific answer, Minister?
Mr Goodwill: The point is that, yes, it is important to look at the 15 miles around the airport and the connections, but for very many people travelling to an airport is a long journey. Therefore, a junction improvement 80 miles away from the airport that person is travelling to may be the one road improvement that improves their access to that airport. It may be that electrification on a rail line 100 miles away from the airport that the person is travelling to will improve their journey.
Q219 Chair: Is that sort of decision taken by the Department rather than a local enterprise partnership, for example?
Mr Goodwill: If it is the Highways England network or the Network Rail network, they are decisions made centrally. On local pinch points it is the local enterprise partnerships, and potentially the combined authorities and organisations like the northern powerhouse. That type of decision is made regionally. It is very important when looking at airport connectivity that we do not just look at the last five miles in isolation. For many people, the journey to the airport is a long journey, and it may encompass a number of modes. They drive to the station and they get a train to the airport; they may even have to take a ferry in some cases, if they are starting in the Isle of Wight. There are a number of different modes that people may have to use. It is the job of the Government to co-ordinate investment in the transport infrastructure in our country. Unlike previous Governments who, when faced with economic difficulties, axed transport projects, we are investing in those projects. We are making some difficult decisions in terms of the welfare budget and departmental spending—areas that have historically been quite difficult to cut—and we are putting that money into infrastructure.
Q220 Chair: Here we are looking at how that relates to specific airport access. We have heard a lot of evidence during this inquiry that suggests that the bulk of increased need is to do with what is called background need—more general needs, not specifically needs related to airport development. Are the improvements you are talking about to do with general need and not specifically to do with airports?
Mr Goodwill: There are two entirely different things. Airports have specific issues—
Q221 Chair: Are the examples Mr Hatteea gave us more to do with general need than with specific airport need?
Sacha Hatteea: The way the investment decisions will be structured in terms of the information that is flowing into them and pulled together, whether it be Network Rail or Highways England, is that they will look at background growth on strategic corridors. They will then factor in localised areas. In particular, if an airport is looking at particular levels of growth, it would be factored into their analysis and would probably change the outcome. It is a mixture of the two. Background growth is being considered, as well as localised events taking place.
Q222 Chair: Do you agree with the information that we have been given that generally it is more to do with background need than specific airport need?
Sacha Hatteea: You are talking about national strategies across the national networks, and obviously over that period of time background growth is going to be across an entire national network. It is more specific than a localised event. The localised event is going to be layered on top. When they consider individual routes, and where investment is needed because of growth and likely congestion and capacity issues, that will all come out in the wash, as it were, as they develop route strategies.
Q223 Martin Vickers: Minister, you have mentioned on a number of occasions the infrastructure that the Government are building or allocating, such as HS2 and so on, to get to airports. What about the allocation of franchises? How much importance do you attach to what is on offer from a franchisee when considering access to airports? Let me give a local example. As you know, my constituency is in north Lincolnshire. It has a direct train service to Manchester airport, but you cannot get there on a Sunday until 12.30, which means that if you are flying before about 2 o’clock it is a pretty useless service. Apart from laying down criteria at the tendering stage, what consideration do you give when looking at what is on offer?
Mr Goodwill: The Department encourages franchise train operators to provide a train service throughout the day to meet the market needs of passengers travelling to and from all airports. However, we recognise that there are limitations to this when the rail lines concerned have to be maintained and the trains cannot operate. In those cases we expect the franchise operator to work with Network Rail to limit the impact. Some airports have services 24/7; for example, Manchester has trains from Manchester Piccadilly all through the night. Where early and late train services are not available, there are often other options serving the airport via bus or coach services.
Of course, the franchise operation is a dynamic operation, and as franchises come up for renewal, bidders put together a package that can show how those services could be augmented. The Northern and TransPennine franchise bids are under very active consideration at the moment, and there will be a decision fairly soon. That type of improvement to service will certainly be one that the Government look at. It also depends on the level of patronage of those services. It is very difficult to justify a service that will have very few passengers on it. A balance always has to be struck, but, by and large, the rail franchise operators understand the importance of providing a good service for airport passengers so that they can attract people to use those services. As we invest in rolling stock, phasing out some trains, such as the Pacers, there is an opportunity to ensure that we have adequate provision on those services, for luggage, for example, to enable people using the services to get to an airport in a sensible and practical way.
Q224 Martin Vickers: That is all very interesting but I am still not entirely sure whether you are saying that the Department actively considers whether what is on offer is getting people access to airports. Is it a major consideration when you consider the offers that come in from the franchisees?
Mr Goodwill: It is one of a number of considerations that are taken into account by the Government. Attracting more people to use rail services is good news for the franchisee, because it means more revenue in the fare box. Where it can be identified that there will be demand for an increased level of service, of course it would be up to those operators to step up to the mark, either within the franchise or in cases where an open access operator may come in. In some cases, a line will have a large proportion of passengers using it for access to the airport. I am thinking of the Birmingham to Birmingham International short hop; a very large number of the people who use that are airport passengers. In other cases, there are fewer people using a particular option, particularly as you get further away from the airport concerned. Everything is taken into account when franchises are allocated. Indeed, where local Members of Parliament engage with those bidders, they can encourage them to put together a bid that includes an improvement to the services which would help people use them to get to a station. It is not only Sundays; Boxing Day is also a bit of a headache for people getting to airports. I know my colleague Claire Perry is concerned about that.
Q225 Martin Vickers: I want to move on to the role of the local enterprise partnerships and combined authorities. You have frequently mentioned them in your replies. Do you think they have sufficient capacity and expertise to deal with these issues?
Mr Goodwill: In the case of the local enterprise partnerships, it is a bit patchy around the country. My experience of the LEPs is that they are very well engaged with the business community. Indeed, in north Yorkshire, the initial bid from those wishing to form the LEP was turned down because it was local government heavy and business light. That situation was addressed and we now have a local enterprise partnership which is much more plugged into the needs of the local economy. It is also encouraging that local enterprise partnerships tend not to get engaged in some of the pork barrel politics that local councillors can be drawn into—for understandable reasons; they always want the investment in their backyard—whereas a local enterprise partnership may understand that it is the junction improvements 20 miles away from where a business is located that will actually benefit that business because that is where the pinch point is on the network.
In terms of combined authorities, it is early days. It will be interesting to see how those authorities develop. I suspect, a bit like local enterprise partnerships, there will be some very good ones and potentially some very bad ones. We need to make sure that we learn from the best and that the worst improve their game. It is also important that the combined authorities will primarily be involved with locally elected people from local authorities. It is important that we do not lose the connection with business; having spoken to a number of those wishing to form combined authorities up and down the country, I know that they understand that it is important that the LEPs form a vital part in terms of their strategy for investment. Very large amounts of money will be available to the combined authorities. It will be about rebalancing the economy, particularly in terms of the north.
For the first time ever, we have seen a real shift in terms of spending power going to those areas and decisions being made in those areas. I am sure the airports will engage with combined authorities and local enterprise partnerships, as before, to ensure that their priorities for investment are understood; and that where money is available and where there is a public benefit as well as a benefit purely for the airport, it can be prioritised in terms of investment. The good news is that there is a big cake out there to be sliced up. That is the fundamental point that I hope the Committee will bear in mind. We have an unprecedentedly large package of investment in our infrastructure in this country. That will benefit all the travelling public, and in particular, where airports can make a case, they can attract specific investment that helps them.
Q226 Martin Vickers: You rightly point out that an LEP can identify a road scheme 20 miles into another area as beneficial to them. Is devolution going to make it more difficult for decisions taken on a cross-border basis?
Mr Goodwill: I hope not, but it is a risk. Funnily enough, it is what happens in mainland Europe between small countries; they invest in the centre and not at the periphery. I hope that will not be the case. The Department will certainly be looking out for it and ensuring that any decisions made on in terms of investment are based on data about delays and congestion.
Q227 Martin Vickers: Does that mean the Department will overrule the local body that has the devolved power?
Mr Goodwill: We will work with them and try to encourage them to look at the regional benefit. I said it is a risk. I am not saying it is necessarily going to happen as a matter of course. Don’t forget that these combined authorities will have representatives from the peripheral parts. We are thinking south bank of the Humber here, I think.
Q228 Martin Vickers: No, I was thinking more generally, but equally, yes, it applies to my area.
Mr Goodwill: It is important to understand that it is a genuine combined authority and they need to make decisions based on what is good for the whole area, but it is a risk and it is something that happens with small central European countries. It is something that we need to guard against happening here. I am confident, given the calibre of some of the people I have met in the embryonic combined authorities, that they will be making decisions based on the overall benefit and will not get engaged in the pork barrel politics that we sometimes saw when we had the regional development agencies, where money seemed to be poured into particular parts of an area and other, peripheral, parts tended to be the poor relation.
Q229 Chair: Does work with them mean that the Department will seek to impose its will?
Mr Goodwill: The whole point of devolution is to devolve decision making, and decision making is being devolved. It is important that we engage with them and give them access to our data in terms of delays and congestion. We have the new infrastructure commission which will be looking at big projects. They will be looking at whether High Speed 3 should be a priority as opposed to Crossrail 2. They will be looking at power generation and other big issues. Where a project has national importance, even if it is in the north of England, it is one that we need to look at in terms of the greater good. Indeed, some of those projects have such big price tickets that they will be beyond the capacity of the combined regional authorities. They will have to be national projects. You could not imagine a situation where the next phases of High Speed rail would be within the budgets set for combined authorities. They would be national projects, and that has never been in doubt.
Q230 Chair: When do you expect the infrastructure commission to be operational?
Mr Goodwill: I would have to write to you on that. I know we are making progress. Next year we are expecting progress, but I will have to write to you with a timetable on that. That particular one is not within my specific remit.
Chair: We would be grateful if you could do that.
Q231 Mark Menzies: Following Mr Vickers’s point, there is some concern, which I share, regarding combined authorities, LEPs and all the various other bodies that are starting to emerge, that there is a bit of a fad and a fashion—the emperor’s new clothes—when it comes to some of this stuff. I am not clear as to where the accountability sits for delivering some of these programmes. For example, let us say it is the combined authority’s job to come up with putting in a bid or co-ordinating activity for a piece of transport infrastructure in the area. If that is not delivered or if there is disagreement within the combined authority but there are just enough votes to get something approved and the people who disagree just lose out, so it does or does not happen, what role does the Department for Transport have in all of that, to make sure that the combined authority has taken the right decisions? You say you have met people of high calibre in these emerging authorities. I have met many of those people who are anything but high calibre and I question what on earth they are doing there. You have more faith in those people than I do. What are we doing to make sure that public money is put to good use, and that those we as Members of Parliament represent have someone who is holding those people to account?
Mr Goodwill: The nearest thing we have to a combined authority already would be London itself. London has worked very well in terms of a combined authority. We have the boroughs and we have the Mayor making the strategic decisions. I do not share your pessimism about the leaders of our great cities in the north, many of whom are not Conservatives but do understand the priorities of their region. They understand the need to keep people together. You said that they might lose the vote. I hope we are not going to be in a situation where every single project comes down to a vote. I hope we will be in a situation where the combined authorities work in a much more collegiate way and that they understand the importance of investment for their whole region. I hope they also understand that, just because a bit of investment does not happen in their own backyard, it does not mean that it will not benefit the region as a whole, generate wealth for the region and improve the benefits in the whole travel-to-work area, particularly in the case of airports. Most regions have one or maybe two airports. It is important that, if there is an important investment decision to be made in connection with that airport, people understand that it is their voters—their citizens—who use that airport even if they do not live within the 10 or 20 mile travel-to-work catchment area.
Q232 Mark Menzies: Let us assume that the leaders of all our great northern cities are high calibre people. In a combined authority, particularly one that is not a city region, some of the emerging ones are made up of a whole range of different personalities and some of those people are not high calibre. Let’s be very honest: some people who lead authorities are very capable, but there are some people who are not very capable, yet we are expecting them in a combined authority to be in charge of delivering critical pieces of regional infrastructure. My question behind that is what assistance and guidance is going to them? How are they being held to account for potentially huge sums of taxpayers’ money, and how do elected Members of Parliament fit in? If my constituents contact me, angry that a piece of infrastructure that they think should be delivered is not delivered, do I simply turn round and say, “Well, it’s nothing to do with me; that’s the combined authority’s job”? Is it your job as a Minister to hold a combined authority to account? Where does the whole accountability for delivery fit in?
Mr Goodwill: Maybe I could take the converse argument. Perhaps one of the reasons why we do not have high calibre people in some local authorities is that we have not given them the decisions to make and the budget to spend that would attract people of the calibre needed to do that. Maybe that is why if you go to our big cities, where we have multi-billion pound budgets, we have seen some very capable people being attracted into public service in that way. It may be chicken and egg. It may be that, by giving the combined authorities big budgets and big decision-making powers, we will attract people into those types of jobs who may not previously have been attracted to them. It is our job as representatives of the political parties to make sure that we recruit the type of candidates, councillors and mayoral candidates who will be able to do that. Indeed, as we have seen from the example of some mayors and police and crime commissioners, many of those who have served in this House felt that they would be able to make more impact serving in another capacity in the regions. I am very optimistic that people will notice how influential these bodies will be and we will get people who are attracted to that because they understand that they can make a difference. They are not just arguing about emptying the bins or when we paint the railings in the park. They will be talking about some very big decisions. I know that there are people out there—sometimes people who have had a successful business career and still have a lot to offer—who previously would not have thought in a month of Sundays about being a councillor, or getting involved in that type of work, and they would think, “Yes, actually we do have some clout.”
We have seen that from the LEPs. The people I see working in LEPs are captains of industry running multi-billion pound businesses. They have tremendous experience and they have been attracted to the LEPs because they have been given the decision-making powers and the budgets. I think the combined authorities will have the same effect. I am optimistic that we will attract the right sort of people into those bodies from across the political spectrum. If people are not performing, of course the ballot box is a way of solving that problem.
Q233 Mark Menzies: Bearing in mind that we are all accountable to our constituents, and our constituents will contact us about a piece of infrastructure in our localities, if something is not being delivered or is being delivered badly and our constituents are coming to us as their Members of Parliament, who do we then hold to account? Do we hold you as the Minister to account ultimately, or do we say, “Nothing to do with us—it’s the combined authority”?
Mr Goodwill: I certainly would not say nothing to do with us. Indeed, in many ways while we have our friends in the—
Q234 Mark Menzies: Are you still accountable? That is my point. Do we hold you to account at the Dispatch Box on this Committee?
Mr Goodwill: Ultimately, we are accountable for everything that happens in the country as a Government. If we felt, for example, that there was some misappropriation of funds or some activities that were not within the powers given to them, then of course we would be able to step in—
Q235 Chair: I think Mr Menzies is talking about a type of decision that could cause very great division or very great concern and that he as a Member of Parliament might feel is very wrong. Would you play any role in trying to assess that or bring about any change? I think that is the point he is making.
Mark Menzies: Yes, absolutely, Chair.
Mr Goodwill: It has still to become clear at what level Government Ministers would be able to intervene if things were going wrong. I would rather be optimistic and say that we will certainly engage with the regional bodies in order to help them identify their investment priorities and to give them the data and the benefit of all the work we do. Of course, there will be projects on the Highways England network which will primarily be within our power. I am optimistic that we will attract the right sort of people and that we will see once again places like the north revitalised by investment, and decisions being made by the people who best know where that money should be spent, and they are the people on the ground. I look forward to working with fellow Conservatives and those from other political parties to ensure that that can be delivered. I am an optimist. I can see more advantages than disadvantages from this local decision-making power. As a Member living in the north, people say to me all the time, “It’s them in London that’s doing this to us.” Actually, the decisions will be made locally and I am confident that if we get the right calibre of people, both through the LEPS, which will I am sure be fully engaged with the combined authorities, and through local government, we will be in a situation that will better deliver the northern powerhouse and other powerhouses around the country where combined authorities are being formed.
Chair: I would now like to turn to the question of employees and people being able to get to airports for work.
Q236 Mary Glindon: We have already talked about the modal shift in passengers, but what can airports do to support their workforce in enabling them to change their mode of travel to work?
Mr Goodwill: Of course, there is an incentive for airports to encourage people to car share or use public transport—freeing up car parking spaces so that passengers can use them and pay to use them. We often underestimate the number of people who travel to an airport to work there. At some of our bigger airports, we are getting more people working there; for example, Newcastle now has a big business park there and they are looking to expand that. At a place like Heathrow, there are lots of people working in the hospitality and hotel industry and also in freight processing. It is not commonly known that by value Heathrow airport is the biggest port in the country—bigger than Felixstowe and Southampton combined; there are a lot of freight operators. There are a lot of people working at airports. It is important that the airport operators themselves can encourage people to engage in car sharing or use other modes of transport. Indeed, by providing better transportation options for passengers we are also providing those options for people who work at the airport.
To give you some stats, 76,000 people work at Heathrow airport for more than 350 employers. Heathrow airport itself has a sustainable transport travel team responsible for developing and delivering the airport surface access strategy. The strategy includes targets for the number of passengers who access the airport using public transport and the number of staff who travel to work in single occupancy vehicles. The airport operates a number of initiatives, including car-sharing schemes for staff, discounts on public transport and a cycle hub which offers a cycle shop, cycle repairs and storage. Single occupancy car use by Heathrow staff reduced from 71% in 2004 to 51% in 2013, so something has been achieved and that is great, but more can be done. I mentioned that we have some air quality issues at airports that need to be addressed, and one way we can address them is by encouraging more people either to car share or to use public transport options.
Q237 Mary Glindon: A disincentive to using your own car is charging staff for parking, as with passengers. Do you think that money should just be seen as a source of revenue or could it be used to improve public transport? Is there anything you could do, as a Department, to say that if there were cash disincentives, such as staff having to pay to park like passengers, the money raised would be used to improve transport?
Mr Goodwill: I am not a big fan of that sort of hypothecation—that money used from staff car parking is used in another area within the company. Those are decisions that the companies who operate the airports should be making. Overall, I know that many airports have a strategy to improve the sustainability of transport for their staff. The initiatives that Heathrow airport has taken are ones that I believe have borne fruit. I am sure that other airports up and down the country will be looking at similar solutions. It is obviously a matter of choice for the airport operator. If one overly charges for parking on the airport site, there is of course always the possibility that other operators, as with passenger parking, would set up private car parks for the people who work at the airport. If there is a good public transport option, many people will choose to use that, not least if it means that they can go from being a two-car family to a one-car family. The savings in using public transport are ones that they can actually bank as opposed to somebody who has a car at home left on the drive. In their view they are already paying once for the means of transport, so why pay again for fares on public transport?
Q238 Chair: Will the Department be issuing a national policy statement on aviation?
Mr Goodwill: Obviously we have the aviation policy framework that was published in March 2013. We will continue to look at how that can be updated. In terms of a national policy statement, that is one of the options that would be used to deliver the decision made on the basis of the Airports Commission’s recommendations. It would not be appropriate to comment on that decision, even if I knew what it was. The Government are providing leadership. We believe that the airport operators are best placed to lead on surface access issues and therefore at the moment the situation is evolving in a way that we think appropriate.
Q239 Chair: Does that mean yes or no?
Mr Goodwill: The framework that we have in place was published in March 2013, so we certainly do not believe it is time to revisit it just yet. Obviously in terms of a national policy statement, it may be one of the ways runway capacity in the south-east could be delivered and that may have other knock-on effects for connectivity around the country.
Q240 Chair: When will we know if that is going to happen?
Mr Goodwill: We will know the decision on runway capacity in the south-east before Christmas. The Secretary of State has made that clear at the Dispatch Box and the decision will be made at the highest level possible.
Q241 Chair: The current aviation policy framework and the CAA, in relation to regulating airports, have a different approach to funding surface access to airports. Is that something you are addressing?
Mr Goodwill: Funnily enough, I have just had a meeting with the CAA. It is not a thing I have really explored with them. I was not aware that we were in a different place in terms of access to airports. For airport capacity expansion, which requires significant investment in surface access infrastructure, the CAA have stated that they would, as required by their statutory duties, assess costs from the viewpoint of airport users such as passengers and cargo owners. In September 2015, the CAA update advised that its current plans are to publish one or more consultation documents in the coming months to build and expand on the regulatory principles outlined in March. You will of course be aware that in the case of regulated airports the fees are set in consultation with the CAA. Any investment that goes into those airports in terms of either runway capacity or surface access would therefore have a knock-on effect for the fees that the airport could charge. Those fees, being regulated fees, would have to be set in consultation with the CAA.
Q242 Chair: What would that mean in terms of charges in relation to, let us say, an expanded Heathrow or Gatwick?
Mr Goodwill: It would mean that any increase in landing fees that the airports imposed would have to be set in consultation with the CAA, and they would have to justify those on the basis of the investment that they are putting into the airport, whether that is investment in capacity for terminals or runways or, indeed, surface access. That does not apply generally to airports around the country, but in the case of regulated airports there is that situation, which is very sensible, because while, in effect, we have a high level of competition between our regional airports, our bigger airports are in a little bit of a market-dominating position, and not to have that regulation in place could mean that that domination of the sector could be exploited in a way that would not be to the benefit of passengers.
Q243 Chair: Who would fund improved access to an expanded Heathrow or Gatwick?
Mr Goodwill: We go back to where we were before, in that it would be a mixture of investment from the taxpayer and the airport. Primarily if infrastructure investment was for the benefit of the airport, its customers and staff, we would expect that the bulk of the investment in that case would be from the airport operator. That is the model we have worked on around the country.
Q244 Chair: Who would decide what the balance was, if there was a balance, between the different funders?
Mr Goodwill: That would be a very interesting negotiation.
Q245 Chair: But who would decide?
Mr Goodwill: As I said about the situation at Gatwick in terms of the money going in there, it would be a case of the Government and the airport operator entering into negotiation to ensure that that could be delivered.
Q246 Graham Stringer: Are our airports disadvantaged by the state aid rules compared with continental airports, which are mainly owned by either local or national government?
Mr Goodwill: We are very concerned that there may be cases around Europe where airports—and it does not just apply to airports but ports and a variety of other areas—
Q247 Graham Stringer: That is the discussion we had last time.
Mr Goodwill: If state aid rules were being flouted, it would be our responsibility to draw that to the attention of the Commission, who could ensure that it was acted on. The state aid rules are good for the UK, because we are not a nation that, as a knee-jerk, wishes to subsidise airports; we understand that the way airports grow and flourish is with private sector investment and by attracting passengers. Indeed, the whole budget airline revolution started in the UK because of our deregulated market, which has meant increasing passenger numbers. That has had knock-on effects in terms of investment in airport terminals, infrastructure and better facilities. We have a very good tale to tell. It is about deregulation and ensuring that private capital can come into these projects. If we saw situations around Europe where state aid rules were being flouted, we would certainly draw them to the attention of the Commission.
It is unlikely that in the UK we would be in a situation where we were crossing the line. We understand the importance of private capital. With the possible exception of one airport in Scotland and one in Wales, the UK Government do not see our job as subsidising airports. In this country, airports have dramatically shown how successful they can be, Manchester airport being a case in point.
Q248 Chair: How long would negotiations take on funding improved access to an expanded Heathrow or Gatwick?
Mr Goodwill: It is very difficult to say. The Government regularly engage—Crossrail is an example. Encouraging those who benefit from an investment like Crossrail is something that could be quite a difficult negotiation, and I suspect could take some time. It would be on a case-by-case basis. If we talk about Heathrow or Gatwick—
Q249 Chair: Let us take either Heathrow or Gatwick. What sort of time would you envisage after a decision is taken on where expansion should take place?
Mr Goodwill: Given how long the planning process is likely to take in each case, I suspect there is plenty of time for those negotiations to take place.
Q250 Chair: Does that mean it is open-ended?
Mr Goodwill: Airports understand that they need to invest in their infrastructure. The history is that they have invested big time in terminals and facilities for their passengers. They understand the importance of investment, as we have seen from the Gatwick station situation. We are very close to delivering that project. There is shared investment from the public purse, the airport itself and the LEPs. That will be the model delivered around the country. It will depend on whether the airport’s passengers are the primary beneficiary or whether there are wider economic benefits around the area. These are the sorts of negotiations that Governments need to be hard-nosed about, and airports will be equally as hard-nosed. There will be a solution that will deliver those projects.
Q251 Chair: But will there be a time limit on that decision?
Mr Goodwill: I really would not want to speculate as to how long those would take. It may well be that they all sit round the room on the first day and say, “This project is going to cost this. We think you should put in 50%, we are going to put in 30% and the LEPs are going to put in 20%.” Who knows? The airport would have a starting position and the Government and the LEP would have a starting position. Where those negotiations ended up and how long they took would, in a way, depend on how far apart the two opening positions were. It is in everyone’s interest to get a solution and deliver the infrastructure that is needed at all our airports around the country. As we have seen over recent months and years, investment is going into our networks and it is improving accessibility to airports. That will continue to be the case as long as we have a Government who understand the importance of investment in infrastructure as a way of generating jobs, wealth for our country and tax revenues, which of course means we can invest a little bit more next time round.
Q252 Graham Stringer: Heathrow and Gatwick have been very critical of the feasibility of each other’s plans. Has the Department done independent feasibility assessments of the two plans? I know there has been the commission, but has the Department done independent feasibility studies on the Gatwick and Heathrow plans?
Mr Goodwill: That is a debate I would not want to get into. There has been a lot of mud-throwing between both sides. It is a very competitive situation.
Q253 Graham Stringer: I am not asking you to come down on one side. I just want to know if you have done independent assessments.
Mr Goodwill: The Airports Commission was an independent assessment looking at all the information. It is a very thick document. I must admit that I have not read every word; I have done my best to get across what was in there. It is a very detailed piece of work, which looks at the economic arguments and a whole variety of areas, including surface access. It would not be appropriate at this time to try to revisit what the Airports Commission said. Where particular criticism has been made of the work of the commission on both sides, most of us would probably take it with a pinch of salt because we know that both airports are campaigning very strongly. It is a bit like a general election campaign. All sorts of suggestions are made during the campaign until the dust has settled; sometimes people on campaigns get a little bit carried away with themselves. Some of the suggestions that have been made may not be borne out. That is not to say that I have looked at them, but we will be getting a decision on airport capacity in the south-east before the end of the year. In terms of the body of information and research that has been carried out, a good place to start would be the Airports Commission’s research, which has looked into a whole variety of areas pertinent to both Heathrow and Gatwick.
Q254 Graham Stringer: Does that mean you have not done a separate feasibility study?
Mr Goodwill: No, we haven’t, as far as I am aware. Obviously we have looked at the Airports Commission report. I am being passed a piece of paper.
Graham Stringer: Inspiration?
Mr Goodwill: You’ll like this: “The Government is currently considering the Airports Commission’s recommendations. While this process is ongoing we are not able to comment or speculate on the merits or otherwise of the commission’s work.”
Q255 Chair: But the question is whether you have done an independent feasibility study.
Mr Goodwill: I have not been given any documents to analyse the work of the Airports Commission. The Airports Commission’s work has been in the public domain for some time now.
Q256 Chair: But are you aware of any independent appraisal by the Department?
Mr Goodwill: I am not aware of any work that has been done in the Department.
Q257 Chair: Or commissioned by the Department?
Mr Goodwill: We have certainly not commissioned any of that type of work that I am aware of. I think the Airports Commission’s report is a good body of evidence on which the Government can base that decision. As I say, the Government will base that decision on the work in that, and a decision as to whether it is Heathrow or Gatwick will be made before the end of the year. At that point I suspect there will be all sorts of opportunities for those who may wish to challenge the decision to enter into all sorts of legal procedures. You would probably expect that to happen. I pay tribute to the Airports Commission for the way it has carried out its work and its detailed analysis of a whole variety of topics that need to be looked at carefully. Surface access and the role of regional and local airports are central to that as well.
Chair: Thank you very much, Minister and Mr Hatteea.
Oral evidence: Surface transport to airports, HC 516 28