5 October 2010
The Conservative Party support aviation and recognise the importance of air freight and people’s freedom to fly, according to the Chair of the 1992 Committee, Graham Brady. The Member of Parliament for Altrincham and Sale West was addressing a Conservative Party Conference fringe event entitled ‘Are the Conservatives now anti-flying?’ when he claimed that his Party believe that the aviation industry is vital to the UK economy. Transport Hub is a series of transport organisations that have come together to put transport back on the political agenda.
De Montfort University’s Prof James Woodhouse, Director of Campaigns for WWF (World Wildlife Fund) UK David Norman, and the Chief Executive of the Association of British Travel Agents (ABTA) Mark Tanzer also spoke at the event, which was Chaired by Patrick Hennessy, Political Editor of the Sunday Telegraph.
Mr Brady opened the meeting by commenting on the title of the event. He claimed that the Conservatives were definitely pro aviation. He said that many of his constituents were employed by Manchester Airport and that he recognised that aviation also contributed to the British economy in a significant way. Dismissing comments that suggested that the Conservatives had adopted Ed Miliband’s anti-airport expansion policy, Mr Brady said that people had to decide whether they want the UK to be an international aviation hub or not.
Speaking next, Prof Woodhouse began his address by stating that all three mainstream political parties are very much dictated to climate change policies. He claimed that they are adverse to road building and added that the coalition now has a hostility towards new runways and that the Government needs to “rehabilitate the aspiration” to travel abroad in the UK population.
Mr Normand agreed with Prof Woodhouse and praised the three main parties for adopting green policies and supporting the WWF. However, he questioned whether the aviation industry was paying a proportional amount of tax to the amount that it pollutes. It was argued that he was not asking the Government to cut out flying but endeavouring to create an environmental balance. Citing the UK’s aim to reduce carbon emissions by 20% by 2050, he claimed that the aviation sector was privileged because it had far lower environmental targets and paid a disproportionately low rate of tax.
Mr Tanzer began his address by dismissing Mr Norman’s comments. He said that Britain had to ask whether it wanted its aviation industry to be internationally competitive or not. All industries would have to subscribe to the vision of a clean Britain but that may not possible it was added. Next Mr Tanzer urged the Government to come up with a definitive plan for the industry and argued that the uncertainty about taxes was driving prices up and turning people away from air travel and trade. He claimed that people were switching to continental airports because of this uncertainty.
Mr Tanzer finished his speech criticising Mr Norman’s comments again. He stated that the green argument is “fine words”, and a vision that is shared by the industry, but he said that in practice it is far different.
Mr Hennessey asked whether it was likely that Britain could still become an international aviation hub, whether new plans for high-speed rail links would solve any aviation issues and what they thought of taxing the industry. Mr Brady responded by claiming that opening a new runway at Heathrow Airport in the South East would be problematic because of infrastructure difficulties. Calling the Government’s apparent lack of analysis on this a matter concerning, Mr Tanzer asked if a regional airport in the North could become an international hub instead.
Prof Woodhouse agreed with Mr Tanzer and highlighted that carbon neutral ways of flying are being developed ahead of schedule. He said that he is in favour of building three or four new hubs and asked what had happened to the Manchester and Glasgow connections to the US. Claiming that the UK should be pushing for stronger connections to Asia, he suggested that the infrastructure projects that Mr Brady does not favour would not only create jobs and improve tourism and benefit the aviation industry but increase the UK’s productivity too.
Mr Norman argued that an expanded Heathrow would be a wasted asset. He claimed that a new runway was a high carbon property that would become redundant in a low carbon world.
Addressing the rail network question, Mr Brady admitted that the high-speed rail plans could be problematic for the aviation industry. He felt that it would increase the concentration of the industry in the South East, which would lead to a need to expand Heathrow Airport and leave Northern Airports without customers.
Mr Tanzer felt that the money spent on developing a high-speed train link between Birmingham and London would be better spent on improving the aviation industry, as that would have a greater economic impact. Prof Woodhouse claimed that the UK needs trains as well as planes and that rail could play an important part in transporting people to airports.
On tax, Mr Brady revealed that charges on aviation were going to continue to increase but claimed that he was concerned that this may stop poorer people from flying. He also said that he did not agree with the argument that taxing airlines would encourage them to ensure that planes are completely full before they fly. He felt that taxing fuel would achieve this in a better way. Mr Tanzer called the tax on aviation regressive and agreed that low-earners would soon not be able to afford to fly. Mr Norman reiterated his earlier view that aviation is currently not paying its fair share of tax.
Sourced from Dehavilland http://www1.dehavilland.co.uk/home