§ 5. Mr. Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)What plans his Department has to review the cross-subsidy of airports in the south-east. [159434]
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty)The Government have no such plans.
§ Mr. PriskMany airlines at Heathrow and Gatwick strongly oppose the idea of cross-subsidising a runway at Stansted. They would not benefit from that, and it would serve their competitors. Given that opposition, what assurances has the Minister received from BAA that it will be able to fund the whole le scheme, including road and rail access?
§ Mr. McNultyThe hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do exactly what is in the White Paper, where we clearly say that the Government will not promote or pay for the development of Stansted. We expect BAA to bring forward plans for the development of new capacity at Stansted in a way that is responsive to market needs, and to provide the necessary funding. We fully recognise the independence of the Civil Aviation Authority and its role in regulating the sector, and the Government expect the CAA and BAA to secure an appropriate framework to bring the development to fruition.
§ Mr. Graham Stringer (Manchester, Blackley) (Lab)Is not the best way to deal with the crocs-subsidy issue to follow the advice of the Select Committee on Transport, and break up BAA? That would not only deal with cross-subsidies but remove something that has been a great barrier to providing runway infrastructure in the south-east for the past 60 years.
§ Mr. McNultyThe CAA has made it clear that its policy of regulating each airport on an individual, stand-alone basis was introduced earlier last year, after consultation, to underpin commercial disciplines for airport development. The CAA has no plans to consult on that again. That would remain the reality, regardless of who owned the airports in the south-east.
Mr. Edward Gamier (Harborough) (Con):The expansion of Stansted airport is of great local interest, as is the expansion of East Midlands airport. When will the Minister respond to my e-mails and rearrange the cancelled meeting on that?
§ Mr. McNultyThe hon. and learned Gentleman should be very clear today, although he was not at the business statement, that that meeting, which was called not by his good self but by another east midlands 1368 Member, was duly cancelled by that Member. The hon. and learned Gentleman's notion that my office cancelled it is erroneous. I am more than happy to have that meeting, which was to discuss the change of name at East Midlands airport, and any subsequent meetings, and I shall answer his e-mail in due course.