Airport Operators Association

Thank you for inviting me to speak to you today.

It's a great pleasure to be here today at your conference.

You are the core of a thriving aviation industry that directly employs 200,000 people in this country;

That drives our multi-billion pound tourist sector;

That helps us trade profitably with the rest of the world;

And that has supported a record sixty one quarters of economic growth in the UK.

No-one should be in any doubt that if we want to be competitive in the global economy, we need a globally competitive aviation industry.

But maintaining that competitive edge presents an increasing challenge.

If we provide more capacity to meet growing demand we must mitigate the impacts of aviation on local people and their communities.

We must ensure that growth is sustainable, and honours our environmental commitments.

And we must address the constantly-evolving terrorist threat - while providing a level of passenger service of which we can all be proud.

These are difficult challenges. And they are not about to get any easier.

But my pledge to you today is that I am determined to step up and meet each and every one.

And I seek your commitment in return.

For I believe that if we follow a shared vision we can be confident of success.

By working together we can build a secure and competitive aviation sector that supports a growing economy in a low carbon world.

Sir Rod Eddington's influential report clearly stated that good transport links are essential to our continued economic growth.

It showed - in broad terms - that we have the right connections in the right places.

Much of that national and international connectivity is provided by the UK's airports, which play a pivotal role in supporting the economies of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions.

Over the past decade regional airports have helped drive the regeneration of cities like Manchester, Birmingham and Newcastle - and provided the links that give local businesses access to global markets. Regional airports also boost inward investment, and act as integrated transport hubs for the freight and logistics industry.

Yet too many of our key airports are running at close to capacity during peak times.

Take Heathrow, for example, where the runways are already operating at 99% capacity. This means that only the slightest delay in one part of the airport has a potentially significant impact on the rest.

We cannot allow such important hubs to become uncompetitive.

If our major airports like Heathrow cannot compete, the inevitable result will be the loss of flights and jobs to airports on the Continent.

Significant economic pain, yet with no overall environmental gain.

That’s not a situation I’m prepared to accept.

Ultimately, if we want to maintain both a thriving UK economy and Heathrow's position as a global hub, we have to look seriously at increasing runway capacity. That is why I will shortly launch a consultation on adding capacity at Heathrow – subject to meeting strict environmental conditions.

If we are to win the debate, however, on aviation, we must take action to ensure that growth is environmentally sustainable.

For I reject the myth that as a nation we must either choose to be 'rich and dirty' or 'poor and green'.

This isn't an either/or question. We don't have to choose between tackling global warming and supporting economic growth.

The Stern Report showed that if we make the right decisions now, we can cut emissions without damaging the economy.

So tackling climate change is the real pro-growth strategy.

That’s why last month I published "Towards a Sustainable Transport System" - our response to Eddington and Stern. It sets out a new framework in which transport can support economic growth and contribute to lower carbon emissions.

That’s why we are arguing for a European cap on aviation emissions at levels below those of today. So if people choose to fly, they pay directly for real reductions in carbon elsewhere.

And that’s why I am prepared to engage in what might be called ‘green skies thinking’ - to consider whether it might be possible to include environmental factors - such as less-polluting aircraft - when allocating newly-created departure and arrival slots.

I want us to work together with open minds to assess the practicality of green slots - and their compatibility with EU regulations.

We need to be ambitious and imaginative if we want to demonstrate this industry's willingness to meet its broader responsibilities.

And if we are to maintain public confidence and support for our aviation sector, we must also take action to improve the quality of passenger service.

Let’s be honest, none of us can be happy with overall levels of customer service provided at some of our airports.

There are many reasons for this, but I'm sure we all recognise that passengers deserve better.

Of course that’s not to say that good service does not exist – it clearly does at many airports across the country.

And there are lots of exciting developments in the pipeline that will improve things further:

The £4.3 billion Terminal 5 at Heathrow will open next spring, providing a welcome capacity boost.

A £30 million expansion programme at Glasgow Airport will transform the passenger experience - with an aim to get 95% of people through security in five minutes.

And significant investment at other key airports - including Manchester and Liverpool - will improve facilities for travellers.

But I’m keen that all those with a stake in this – airport operators, airlines, regulator and government - continue to up our game.

Next week I will publish an analysis of the end-to-end passenger experience at Heathrow.

This looks at the entire journey from the point of view of the passenger and brings together the available data on performance each step of the way. I hope it will help stimulate ideas about what more we all can do to improve the travel experience for customers. And I hope that in time we’ll be able to do this for airports across the country.

But for the rest of my speech today I'd like to focus on the continuing challenge of security - maintaining the highest levels of protection for passengers, while improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the airport security process.

My own introduction to airport security came just a couple of days after becoming Transport Secretary, with the foiled attack on Glasgow Airport.

It was a sobering and shocking reminder that aviation continues to represent an enduring target for terrorists.

And so I welcome Lord West's review of security, which reported to the Prime Minister today. Lord West noted and welcomed the work already undertaken by my Department and airports to protect against vehicle-borne attacks. We will look carefully at his findings, but I was reassured that he thinks we are on broadly the right track.

No-one should be in any doubt about the threat. Speaking recently, MI5 chief, Jonathan Evans, revealed that around 2,000 people in the country are currently involved in terrorist activity.

And the threat is constantly evolving, as we discovered in August 2006 with the alleged plot to bomb aircraft on transatlantic flights from the UK - potentially killing thousands of people.

This highlighted a new method of terrorist attack, using relatively small amounts of liquids and other components. These could escape detection hidden in hand luggage or on the person, before being mixed into an explosive cocktail.

It was clear that in the wake of this new danger, we needed to adapt our security response.

We needed a new regime that would prevent dangerous liquids being taken on board aircraft - and yet would be practical to implement.

With the threat level at critical, the immediate response was a total ban on all hand baggage.

But - with the subsequent reduction in the threat level, and by working with the industry - we were soon able to adjust the measures. First by allowing passengers to carry a single cabin bag of modest size. Later we increased this to the size recommended by IATA.

Fundamentally, there was a problem of capacity. If no restrictions had been imposed, screeners would have been unable to do their job effectively.

They would be looking for a substantially bigger range of potentially dangerous items - including for the first time liquids - concealed in cabin bags, as well as screening jackets, coats, and laptops.

The one-bag limit allowed passengers to continue taking their belongings onto the aircraft, while also ensuring that security levels would not be compromised.

We were clear from the beginning, though, that this was a temporary arrangement - and that the one-bag rule would change once the industry had demonstrated its ability to screen passengers and bags to an acceptable standard, in the light of the new threat.

It was also apparent that this would require extra resources - such as investment in staff or new technology, or a combination of both.

We wanted the industry to be proactive about finding ways to increase capacity and so allow us to move forward on baggage limits.

At the Aviation Security Summit in July I asked the Department, working together with industry experts, to form a Working Group to accelerate the development of proposals.

We have assessed the effectiveness of the one-bag rule over the past year, considering airport investment in new screening technologies, and the improvements that extra security staff and new procedures have made at selected airports around the country.

The advice of the Working Group has informed our decisions on providing the best framework for passenger security at airports.

The first and most important consideration in any change to the one-bag rule is that robust security standards are maintained throughout.

The question is how can we improve capacity, and cut queues, while ensuring proper, effective levels of security.

And so - following the advice of the Working Group - today I can set out the next phase in the evolution of our airport security strategy - a new approach to hand baggage security that will be introduced progressively as airports are ready to handle the extra capacity.

In adopting this approach I have rejected two alternatives.

First, simply lifting the one-bag rule at all UK airports now would not be sensible. Too many airports have still not got the necessary screening capacity in place to maintain appropriate security standards.

And yet waiting until every airport is ready to adopt the new regime would penalise passengers using the rest of the network.

I am not prepared to move at the pace of the slowest. Our approach is designed to make maximum use of extra capacity as it becomes available, so we can pass the benefits on to the passenger as quickly as possible.

So we are inviting each airport to submit plans to Transec to take advantage of new technology, operational innovations, and unexploited capacity in the system to make a real difference to passengers as soon as possible.

Transec will need to be assured that airports have proved their ability to handle the extra capacity safely and securely before approving any plan.

But because airports are so busy at Christmas - and because it's a time when the priority must be to focus on your core operations - we won't change the regime before the New Year.

The earliest date, therefore, that airports will be able to introduce a new approach to hand luggage will be January 7, 2008.

I know some airports have been making the investment and changes necessary to move to a new regime and I expect them to come forward with plans shortly. But I recognise that for others this is more of a challenge and will require more time.

I hope to see rapid progress across the whole country - with all airports submitting plans over the next few months.

But some of you may need to enforce your own baggage restrictions to ensure that acceptable security standards are maintained throughout.

Equally, some airlines may choose to keep cabin bag restrictions for their own operational reasons.

Let me make clear again. This is not about relaxing security. It's about allowing airports to take advantage of smarter technologies and improved processes to deliver a better service to the passenger.

Each airport's different, with different security and capacity issues. So we will remain flexible about implementation.

We want you to drive forward this process, sharing best practice, and learning from each other - particularly from those airports that have recently invested in new technology, extra staff, and better facilities.

My Security Director will be writing to all UK airports and airlines later today with full details of the new arrangements.

The methods of attack that came to light last year are still available to terrorists. And so the restrictions on liquids will remain for the foreseeable future - initially in their current form, but evolving as new technologies and procedures allow.

We will work with our EU partners and the European Commission where process changes that can free up capacity will require change to European regulations - for example on the system for screening of laptops, which I know is a matter of great concern for airports and passengers alike.

Looking further ahead, I will look at both the regulatory and legislative frameworks to ensure that the division of responsibilities for airport security is clear - for example around airport policing - and the right customer service incentives are in place.

In conclusion, managing security at airports has always been challenging - but rarely more challenging than it is today, with the heightened terror threat, and record demand for air services.

These may seem like exceptional times, and exceptional circumstances.

But we'd better get used to them. They're not going to disappear.

We need to rise to the challenges of capacity, carbon emissions, customer care, and security - and implement the plans that will deliver our shared objectives.

Together, they form a blueprint for a more competitive, customer-focused industry that will be seen to be taking its broader responsibilities seriously.

Delivered: 14 November 2007

(This speech represented existing departmental policy but the words may not have been the same as those used by the Minister.)