It is no surprise to see a government that claims to be committed to making economic growth a priority giving the green light to expansion of Gatwick Airport and Luton Airport.
Nor, for that matter, would it be a surprise for a third runway at Heathrow Airport to be given the go-ahead by Sir Keir Starmer‘s government – particularly as Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, told the London Evening Standard in July last year that she had “nothing against expanding airport capacity… I want Heathrow to be that European hub for travel”.
Put in purely economic terms, airport expansion is a no-brainer.
The independent commission led by Sir Howard Davies, the former chairman of NatWest, and published as long ago as July 2015, concluded that “expanded airport capacity is crucial for the UK’s long-term prosperity”.
Gatwick, according to a report prepared for the airport by the independent economic consultancy Oxera, generated £5.5bn for the economy in 2023 and supported more than 76,000 jobs.
More on Heathrow Airport
Related Topics:
The airport’s owner estimates that expanding it to take annual capacity to 75 million by the mid-2030s, up from the £46.5m it hit in 2019, would create around 14,000 jobs and generate an extra £1bn a year in economic benefits.
Those numbers are difficult to verify – but it can be stated with confidence that anything which provides access to new markets for both consumers and businesses will be positive for growth.
Expanding the smaller Luton Airport would, similarly, be positive for growth.
Image: A plane flies past a ‘Stop Heathrow Expansion’ sign in west London. Pic: PA
The airport in 2019 – these pre-pandemic numbers are probably the most reliable given the upheaval of the last few years – is estimated to have supported 16,500 jobs in the local area and contributed £1.1bn to GDP. Expansion on the airport’s estimates creates up to 6,100 jobs and contributes an extra £900m to GDP.
Trumping them both, of course, is Heathrow.
The Davies Commission said that building a third runway to the northwest of the airport would provide for around 40 new destinations from Heathrow and would create more than 70,000 new jobs by 2050, adding some £147bn to GDP.
It stated: “Heathrow is best-placed to provide the type of capacity which is most urgently required: long-haul destinations to new markets. It provides the greatest benefits for business passengers, freight operators and the broader economy.”
It is worth noting that among the members of the commission was Sir John Armitt, the respected former chairman of the Olympic Delivery Authority, who is now chair of the National Infrastructure Commission.
His term of office was extended by Ms Reeves in October last year in order for him to oversee the 10-year strategy ordered by the chancellor and the establishment of the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority.
He will be an influential voice in this debate.
However, while the economic case for airport expansion is unimpeachable, the bigger question, perhaps, is whether it is achievable.
Political considerations
Getting approval for the expansion of both Luton and Gatwick will be a major test of the new government’s commitment to overhauling planning regulations where they are an impediment to growth.
And here there are – for supporters of expansion – ominous signs.
A decision on whether or not to expand Luton was postponed for the third time just before Christmas so that Heidi Alexander, who had just succeeded the disgraced Louise Haigh as transport secretary, could be given time to assess the application.
Climate concerns
Tied into the planning hurdles are the inevitable environmental objections.
The Climate Change Committee, the government’s independent advisory body, has already said emissions savings would have to be made elsewhere in the economy were there to be a big expansion in airport passenger numbers.
The aviation industry will doubtless argue that it has already committed to becoming net zero by the middle of the century – but the environmental lobby has a long track record of successfully campaigning against airport expansion.
On top of that are the political obstacles.
Ms Reeves – and Ms Alexander, should she back expansion of Gatwick and Luton – will face implacable opposition from within their own cabinet, not least from Ed Miliband, the energy and climate change secretary.
Backing Heathrow expansion would be more controversial still.
Sadiq Khan, the London mayor, is strongly opposed to this and so are other senior Labour figures, among them Andy Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester.
He argues that a third runway at Heathrow would run counter to levelling-up proposals – although it is worth noting here that some of the UK’s biggest regional airports, such as Newcastle, support a third runway on the basis that it would boost international connectivity to their region.
That means leadership will ultimately have to come from Sir Keir Starmer who, it is worth noting, voted against a third runway at Heathrow in 2018.
Government unlikely to ever get credit
Supporting airport expansion is often difficult for governments – quite apart from the environmental objections and the inevitable planning hurdles – because it takes so long to add capacity and ministers are therefore unlikely to receive credit for it during their political lifetime.
For example, the two main airport expansion projects currently under way in Europe, the new Luis de Camoes airport in Lisbon and the new Solidarity superhub in Warsaw, are unlikely to be completed until the mid-2030s.
But the latter, in particular, highlights how other European governments have no hesitation in seeing airport expansion as a major generator of growth.
It is not alone. Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport, an increasingly important competitor to Heathrow, is currently investing some €6bn in upgrades with the aim of expanding both passenger and flight numbers. Budapest, an airport once owned by BAA, the former parent of Heathrow and Gatwick, is looking to build a third terminal that would generate an extra three million passengers by the end of the decade.
These examples highlight how other European governments are less squeamish about putting airport expansion over environmental considerations in the name of pursuing economic growth.
You can be sure that the international investors who own Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton will be looking to the UK to do likewise.
Two chairs of FTSE-100 companies are vying to succeed Adam Crozier at the top of Whitbread, the London-listed group behind the Premier Inn hotel chain.
Sky News has learnt that Christine Hodgson, who chairs water company Severn Trent, and Andrew Martin, chair of the testing and inspection group Intertek, are the leading contenders for the Whitbread job.
Mr Crozier, who has chaired the leisure group since 2018, is expected to step down later this year.
The search, which has been taking place for several months, is expected to conclude in the coming weeks, according to one City source.
Ms Hodgson has some experience of the leisure industry, having served on the board of Ladbrokes Coral Group until 2017, while Mr Martin was a senior executive at the contract caterer Compass Group and finance chief at the travel agent First Choice Holidays.
Under Mr Crozier’s stewardship, Whitbread has been radically reshaped, selling its Costa Coffee subsidiary to The Coca-Cola Company in 2019 for nearly £4bn.
The company has also seen off an activist campaign spearheaded by Elliott Advisers, while Mr Crozier orchestrated the appointment of Dominic Paul, its chief executive, following Alison Brittain’s retirement.
More from Money
It said last year that it sees potential to grow the network from 86,000 UK bedrooms to 125,000 over the next decade or so.
Mr Crozier is one of Britain’s most seasoned boardroom figures, and now chairs BT Group and Kantar, the market research and data business backed by Bain Capital and WPP Group.
He previously ran the Football Association, ITV and – in between – Royal Mail Group.
On Friday, shares in Whitbread closed at £25.41, giving the company a market capitalisation of about £4.5bn.
The bosses of four of Britain’s biggest banks are secretly urging the chancellor to ditch the most significant regulatory change imposed after the 2008 financial crisis, warning her its continued imposition is inhibiting UK economic growth.
Sky News has obtained an explosive letter sent this week by the chief executives of HSBC Holdings, Lloyds Banking Group, NatWest Group and Santander UK in which they argue that bank ring-fencing “is not only a drag on banks’ ability to support business and the economy, but is now redundant”.
The CEOs’ letter represents an unprecedented intervention by most of the UK’s major lenders to abolish a reform which cost them billions of pounds to implement and which was designed to make the banking system safer by separating groups’ high street retail operations from their riskier wholesale and investment banking activities.
Their request to Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, to abandon ring-fencing 15 years after it was conceived will be seen as a direct challenge to the government to take drastic action to support the economy during a period when it is forcing economic regulators to scrap red tape.
It will, however, ignite controversy among those who believe that ditching the UK’s most radical post-crisis reform risks exacerbating the consequences of any future banking industry meltdown.
In their letter to the chancellor, the quartet of bank chiefs told Ms Reeves that: “With global economic headwinds, it is crucial that, in support of its Industrial Strategy, the government’s Financial Services Growth and Competitiveness Strategy removes unnecessary constraints on the ability of UK banks to support businesses across the economy and sends the clearest possible signal to investors in the UK of your commitment to reform.
“While we welcomed the recent technical adjustments to the ring-fencing regime, we believe it is now imperative to go further.
More on Electoral Dysfunction
Related Topics:
“Removing the ring-fencing regime is, we believe, among the most significant steps the government could take to ensure the prudential framework maximises the banking sector’s ability to support UK businesses and promote economic growth.”
Work on the letter is said to have been led by HSBC, whose new chief executive, Georges Elhedery, is among the signatories.
His counterparts at Lloyds, Charlie Nunn; NatWest’s Paul Thwaite; and Mike Regnier, who runs Santander UK, also signed it.
While Mr Thwaite in particular has been public in questioning the continued need for ring-fencing, the letter – sent on Tuesday – is the first time that such a collective argument has been put so forcefully.
The only notable absentee from the signatories is CS Venkatakrishnan, the Barclays chief executive, although he has publicly said in the past that ring-fencing is not a major financial headache for his bank.
Other industry executives have expressed scepticism about that stance given that ring-fencing’s origination was largely viewed as being an attempt to solve the conundrum posed by Barclays’ vast investment banking operations.
The introduction of ring-fencing forced UK-based lenders with a deposit base of at least £25bn to segregate their retail and investment banking arms, supposedly making them easier to manage in the event that one part of the business faced insolvency.
Banks spent billions of pounds designing and setting up their ring-fenced entities, with separate boards of directors appointed to each division.
More recently, the Treasury has moved to increase the deposit threshold from £25bn to £35bn, amid pressure from a number of faster-growing banks.
Sam Woods, the current chief executive of the main banking regulator, the Prudential Regulation Authority, was involved in formulating proposals published by the Sir John Vickers-led Independent Commission on Banking in 2011.
Legislation to establish ring-fencing was passed in the Financial Services Reform (Banking) Act 2013, and the regime came into effect in 2019.
In addition to ring-fencing, banks were forced to substantially increase the amount and quality of capital they held as a risk buffer, while they were also instructed to create so-called ‘living wills’ in the event that they ran into financial trouble.
The chancellor has repeatedly spoken of the need to regulate for growth rather than risk – a phrase the four banks hope will now persuade her to abandon ring-fencing.
Britain is the only major economy to have adopted such an approach to regulating its banking industry – a fact which the four bank chiefs say is now undermining UK competitiveness.
“Ring-fencing imposes significant and often overlooked costs on businesses, including SMEs, by exposing them to banking constraints not experienced by their international competitors, making it harder for them to scale and compete,” the letter said.
“Lending decisions and pricing are distorted as the considerable liquidity trapped inside the ring-fence can only be used for limited purposes.
“Corporate customers whose financial needs become more complex as they grow larger, more sophisticated, or engage in international trade, are adversely affected given the limits on services ring-fenced banks can provide.
“Removing ring-fencing would eliminate these cliff-edge effects and allow firms to obtain the full suite of products and services from a single bank, reducing administrative costs”.
In recent months, doubts have resurfaced about the commitment of Spanish banking giant Santander to its UK operations amid complaints about the costs of regulation and supervision.
The UK’s fifth-largest high street lender held tentative conversations about a sale to either Barclays or NatWest, although they did not progress to a formal stage.
HSBC, meanwhile, is particularly restless about the impact of ring-fencing on its business, given its sprawling international footprint.
“There has been a material decline in UK wholesale banking since ring-fencing was introduced, to the detriment of British businesses and the perception of the UK as an internationally orientated economy with a global financial centre,” the letter said.
“The regime causes capital inefficiencies and traps liquidity, preventing it from being deployed efficiently across Group entities.”
The four bosses called on Ms Reeves to use this summer’s Mansion House dinner – the City’s annual set-piece event – to deliver “a clear statement of intent…to abolish ring-fencing during this Parliament”.
Doing so, they argued, would “demonstrate the government’s determination to do what it takes to promote growth and send the strongest possible signal to investors of your commitment to the City and to strengthen the UK’s position as a leading international financial centre”.
The Post Office will next week unveil a £1.75bn deal with dozens of banks which will allow their customers to continue using Britain’s biggest retail network.
Sky News has learnt the next Post Office banking framework will be launched next Wednesday, with an agreement that will deliver an additional £500m to the government-owned company.
Banking industry sources said on Friday the deal would be worth roughly £350m annually to the Post Office – an uplift from the existing £250m-a-year deal, which expires at the end of the year.
The sources added that in return for the additional payments, the Post Office would make a range of commitments to improving the service it provides to banks’ customers who use its branches.
Banks which participate in the arrangements include Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds Banking Group, NatWest Group and Santander UK.
Under the Banking Framework Agreement, the 30 banks and mutuals’ customers can access the Post Office’s 11,500 branches for a range of services, including depositing and withdrawing cash.
More on Post Office Scandal
Related Topics:
The service is particularly valuable to those who still rely on physical cash after a decade in which well over 6,000 bank branches have been closed across Britain.
In 2023, more than £10bn worth of cash was withdrawn over the counter and £29bn in cash was deposited over the counter, the Post Office said last year.
A new, longer-term deal with the banks comes at a critical time for the Post Office, which is trying to secure government funding to bolster the pay of thousands of sub-postmasters.
Reliant on an annual government subsidy, the reputation of the network’s previous management team was left in tatters by the Horizon IT scandal and the wrongful conviction of hundreds of sub-postmasters.
A Post Office spokesperson declined to comment ahead of next week’s announcement.