B802 - Aviation Bill 2015 (Second Reading) Watch

This discussion is closed.
Birchington
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
B802 - Aviation Bill 2015 (Second Reading), TSR UKIP
Aviation Bill 2015
An Act to introduce a fair tax on flying while allowing expansion of aviation in the United Kingdom.




BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice
and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance
with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of
the same, as follows:-

1: Expansion at Heathrow

Heathrow Airport expansion will be authorised.
i) An extension to the northern runway
ii) A new runway to the North
iii) A new runway to the South-west.
a. Heathrow Airport can exercise a maximum of two of the above options.
A sixth terminal to the north-west of Heathrow Airport will be authorised.
A seventh terminal to the South will be authorised if option 1.iii is chosen.
Homes and property will be bought for 130% of their current market value as will assessed by an independent estate agent.

2: Expansion at Gatwick

A second runway at Gatwick Airport will be authorised to be built in line with recommendations from the report by the Airports Commission.
A new terminal will be authorised between the current runway and the new runway.

3: Heathrow Controls

No operating constraints will be imposed at Heathrow
A new fire station must be built on Heathrow property near the new runway to maintain the same level of coverage as is currently provided with a capacity increase.
i) The firestation and equipment will be funded by the UK government.

4: Air Passenger Duty

Air Passenger Duty will be scrapped.

5: Short Title, Commencement, and Extent

This bill may be cited as the Aviation Bill 2015.
Sections 1 and 2 will come into effect immediately after passing, section 3 will come into effect when the approach and departure equipment at London Heathrow Airport has been changed to accommodate the new approach and climb restrictions. Section 4 will commence on the 1st April 2016.
This bill shall extend to the whole of the United Kingdom.

Changes

Simplified wording.
Extra expansion option added, preferred option to be chosen by the airport.
Changed restrictions on flights.
Costings

Costings

Based on current values the direct cost to the treasury will be £3bn but this will be offset by the boosts to the UK economy leading to higher tax revenues from tourism and the extra 60,000 jobs created. The long-term net boost to the economy can be used to research newer, green technologies to produce energy.

As it is private development funded by Heathrow Airport Holdings Plc with private investors it will be at minimal cost to the government.

The firestation and equipment will cost below £15m.

Notes

A report by PWC reveals that a decrease in APD will see the economy boosted of £16bn as well as creating an extra 60,000 jobs. The report concludes the £500m cost on businesses deters investment, and UK based airlines pay as much as 25% of their revenues in APD than EU or foreign airlines airlines operating in the UK giving a competitive disadvantage to British airlines.
This bill aims to reduce taxes on flying to provide that boost to the economy while at the same time penalising the worst polluters more. Airlines, aircraft manufacturers, and engine manufacturers will have an incentive to produce more fuel efficient, quieter aircraft and engines.

Both 1.(1) and 1.(2) are in line with options shortlisted on the report by the Airports Commission established by the government in 2012.


PWC Report: http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/psrc/united...ger-duty.jhtml
Same PWC Report but a free version of it: http://corporate.easyjet.com/~/media...y-Abridged.pdf
Cost of friestation: http://www.building.co.uk/kier-secur...058866.article
0
Tahret
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
NIMBY? Compulsory purchase may be needed, and is unethical at best.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
Wow?! No air pas anger duty at all??? Say goodbye to any green vote you hoped for.
0
Jean-Luc Picard
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
Nay, as a Green I find this beyond moronic.
0
thehistorybore
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
I can see the sense, but I can't justify the scale of the airport expansion here, especially with the sixth terminal at Heathrow.
0
Wellzi
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
M full support of course
0
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
(Original post by Burford99)
NIMBY? Compulsory purchase may be needed, and is unethical at best.
I do not have an issue with compulsory purchase orders because NIMBY people must not be allowed to halt important developments worth billions to the British economy.
1
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
(Original post by thehistorybore)
I can see the sense, but I can't justify the scale of the airport expansion here, especially with the sixth terminal at Heathrow.
It will not definitely be built but the bill allows the terminal in the future to prevent another expansion debate lasting over a decade.
0
thehistorybore
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
(Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
It will not definitely be built but the bill allows the terminal in the future to prevent another expansion debate lasting over a decade.
Right, I shall now be reconsidering my position.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
Should 3.1 be 'no new additional' or are you removing the current constraints.

Formatting (numbers).

Bolden the cost for budget purposes (easier to notice) and stick the link to this chart in the notes as evidence of the current air passenger revenues..

http://www.statista.com/graphic/1/28...x-receipts.jpg

..

I shall likely vote Aye.
0
Tahret
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
(Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
I do not have an issue with compulsory purchase orders because NIMBY people must not be allowed to halt important developments worth billions to the British economy.
I assume you meant to quote me here.

It goes against the idea of the separation of the state and the individual to compulsorily purchase a property; I think that the right to own private property is greater than the economic development in this case.
0
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
(Original post by Burford99)
I assume you meant to quote me here.

It goes against the idea of the separation of the state and the individual to compulsorily purchase a property; I think that the right to own private property is greater than the economic development in this case.
I would usually agree with you but in the case of Heathrow expansion the people chose to buy homes near an airport, and aviation has been growing every year since its conception. It has been clear since the start of commercial aviation that airports would need to expand, consequentially these people do not deserve the right to own property in the face of development. If there was debate about knocking down houses to build an airport from scratch the right to own property should be supported as the people living in the houses could not have predicted what would happen in the future, and they people could not have made decision to prevent living in an area where an airport would be built.

(Original post by Rakas21)
Should 3.1 be 'no new additional' or are you removing the current constraints.
Restrictions only inhibit Heathrow's competitiveness on a world stage, hence their removal. As these are minor changes Birchington might be able to make them now to prevent a third reading of this.
0
Tahret
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
(Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
I would usually agree with you but in the case of Heathrow expansion the people chose to buy homes near an airport, and aviation has been growing every year since its conception. It has been clear since the start of commercial aviation that airport would one day need to expand, consequentially these people do not deserve the right to own property in the face of development. If there was debate about knocking down houses to build an airport from scratch the right to own property should be supported as the people living in the houses could not have predicted what would happen in the future, and they people could not have made decision to prevent living in an area where an airport would be built.
I don't think major expansion can be justified. Maybe an extra runway, but two is overkill. I can't accept that there are not better alternatives than moving people out of their homes (many of which are owned for decades, before Heathrow expansion was a thing) without their consent.
0
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
(Original post by Burford99)
I don't think major expansion can be justified. Maybe an extra runway, but two is overkill. I can't accept that there are not better alternatives than moving people out of their homes (many of which are owned for decades, before Heathrow expansion was a thing) without their consent.
Heathrow first came about in 1929 and has been expanding ever since, so home owners must have owned their home for longer than 87 years to claim their house was bought when expansion was not an issue. The extra terminals and fourth runway will not be build straight away but it is better to authorise their construction now to future proof the airport, than it is having another decade-long expansion debate twenty years from now.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
(Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
I would usually agree with you but in the case of Heathrow expansion the people chose to buy homes near an airport, and aviation has been growing every year since its conception. It has been clear since the start of commercial aviation that airports would need to expand, consequentially these people do not deserve the right to own property in the face of development. If there was debate about knocking down houses to build an airport from scratch the right to own property should be supported as the people living in the houses could not have predicted what would happen in the future, and they people could not have made decision to prevent living in an area where an airport would be built.

Restrictions only inhibit Heathrow's competitiveness on a world stage, hence their removal.As these are minor changes Birchington might be able to make them now to prevent a third reading of this.
You can change stuff for the vote reading anyway. I do it all the time if its not a point that changes anything drastically.
0
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
(Original post by Rakas21)
You can change stuff for the vote reading anyway. I do it all the time if its not a point that changes anything drastically.
Thank you I shall do that.
0
Tanqueray91
  • Study Helper
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 years ago
#17
Yeh has smoothed a lot out since First Reading - enough that I think I'll say Aye
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 years ago
#18
Separate the APD bit (although is there now a replacement planned) and I'd probably support that bit.

Airport expansion I won't. We are having conversations in Government at the moment but I don't remember anyone backing Heathrow expansion.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 years ago
#19
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
Separate the APD bit (although is there now a replacement planned) and I'd probably support that bit.

Airport expansion I won't. We are having conversations in Government at the moment but I don't remember anyone backing Heathrow expansion.
I wish government would get out of the way of private business and let them thrive, airports are not publicly owned any more.

As for the homeowners nearby, the vast majority will have to suck it up since they knew there was a risk of expansion when they moved in.
0
Republic1
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 years ago
#20
As long as something is introduced to replace APD in the future then this is a lot better.

As much as I would love Boris Island, we're stuck with Heathrow which has some good plans for the future.

The demotion of Terminals 1 and 3 will seriously improve the airport and we shouldn't let NIMBYs get in the way of another runway.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Why wouldn't you turn to teachers if you were being bullied?

They might tell my parents (26)
7.01%
They might tell the bully (35)
9.43%
I don't think they'd understand (56)
15.09%
It might lead to more bullying (145)
39.08%
There's nothing they could do (109)
29.38%

Watched Threads

View All