Read the full report

One of the report’s key findings is that the vast majority of Chinese visitors to Europe are discouraged by needing to apply for two visas – one for the UK and one for Schengen, the latter allowing them to visit 26 other European countries. Only one Chinese visitor in ten applies for both visas. This is estimated to cost the UK £1.2billion in lost retail sales, and this figure is set to rise to £3.1billion by 2020 when China is forecast to be the world’s largest outbound tourism market.

At the report launch, Immigration Minister, Mark Harper gave his commitment to work with business to explore ways to improve the application process so that it is easier for Chinese visitors to apply for both visas at the same time.

Outlining a new VIP mobile visa service for business travellers, where applicants can apply for their visa and provide their biometric information to a visa officer who comes to their home or place of work, Harper also alluded to future initiatives that could see closer collaboration with tour operators in China.

London First and the UKCVA will continue working with the Home Office to explore ways to streamline the UK visa application process without compromising UK border security.

Commenting on the publication of the London Finance Commission report today Baroness Jo Valentine, Chief Executive of London First, said:

“Londoners and London businesses pay significantly more in tax than is spent in London and London government is largely dependent on an unpredictable and uncertain grant from central government. This makes it difficult for London government to plan investment spending properly.  We agree that London government should retain a greater proportion of the taxes raised in London at levels broadly consistent with current spending. Where further functions are devolved, so too should be tax revenues. It’s time to free the Mayor from having to spend his time lobbying central government, and going cap in hand to the Treasury, when he should be focused on positive actions to bring in investment and growth.”

For all media enquiries and interivew requests, contact Fran Edwards, Media Relations Manager on 020 7665 1427 or fedwards@londonfirst.co.uk

Download a copy of  ’Crossrail 2: Supporting London’s Growth’

Download a copy of the proposed route map

Crossrail 2 would create a new high frequency, high capacity rail line with shorter journey times between south west and north east London. It would help to relieve congestion on busy main line routes into central London and on the Underground network, while allowing communities around London to benefit from the creation of new jobs and new homes.

Read the full TfL press release

Baroness Jo Valentine, Chief Executive of London First said:  “We welcome the start of the consultation process for Crossrail 2 today which is a key piece of infrastructure needed for London.  Even with the major transport programmes that are already planned or underway, by the late 2020s most tube and train carriages will feel like sardine tins for much of the day. That’s bad for London of course, but as the capital is the engine room of the UK economy, it would be damaging to the country as a whole. We need everyone to get behind this project and make it happen.”

This morning, Friday 10 May, the House of Commons Transport Committee published its aviation strategy, calling on the Government to abandon ideas for a new hub airport in the Thames Estuary and instead focus on constructing a 3^rd and possible 4^th runway at Heathrow.

Read the report on the Parliament website

Commenting on the, London First’s chief executive, Baroness Jo Valentine, said:

“It’s good that the Committee has endorsed the need to build new runways in the South-East, but that will take many years and we need additional air capacity as soon as possible.

“We have to make the existing airports work harder. There is space at Gatwick and Stansted and we can make space at Heathrow by using the two runways more intensively. And we need to invest in the rail links to Gatwick and Stansted, to bring them up to at least the same standard as those to Heathrow.

“That’s what the UK economy needs in the short-term and the government needs to move quickly to ensure that it happens.”

 London First recommends that, in the absence of any long-term strategy to build new runways, priority must be given to finding ways of increasing flights through more intensive use of existing runways.  It estimates that Heathrow could support 10 per cent more flights, while reducing delays; and that Gatwick and Stansted airports could attract more airlines and passengers if existing price controls were abolished and the quality and capacity of rail services to both were improved.

Baroness Jo Valentine, Chief Executive of London First, said:

“We face fierce global competition from rivals who are increasing their air links to new and established markets. In the absence of a long term plan for new runway capacity to meet that threat, we have no choice but to make the assets we have work more intensively.

“Action is needed now.  The Commission must recommend how more flights can be introduced where the market wants them. We think the cap on flights at Heathrow can be lifted, and residents protected from noise, and Gatwick and Stansted deregulated to let London’s competitive market flourish, extending choice and services.”

“Without decisive action and the changes we recommend, the growing economic cost of deferring new runways – already too great – will not be halted.”

London First notes that new runways cannot be built quickly but in the short-term flights can be increased at Heathrow by around 10 per cent per annum, by using both its existing runways concurrently for take-off and landing.

At the same time, arcane price controls on Gatwick and Stansted could be removed to allow these airports to compete more effectively, driving choice and increasing their ability to attract new airlines and passengers. Rail services to these airports, if brought up to world class standards, would strengthen their ability to use their assets more intensively.

Lifting Heathrow’s cap on flights would not only extend the UK’s air links but also bring greater headroom to cut delays. More flights must not bring either a material increase in the number of people affected by today’s aggregate noise levels or an increase in the intensity of that noise.

London First believes that, with further improvements to aircraft technology, runway use and approach patterns, it will be possible to increase the number of flights further without increasing the overall impact of noise on residents.  Over the past 30 years, the overall noise impact in terms of the number of people affected has reduced from around 2 million to 250,000, despite a 75% increase in the number of flights and continued housing development near the airport.

More people are affected in London alone by similar levels of noise from road traffic (2 million +) or trains (300,000) than are affected in the whole of the south-east by flights in and out of Heathrow.  While fleet replacement and other improvements will continue to have a positive impact, London First also recommends that controls on noise be enforced by an independent noise regulator, established by Parliament.

 London First has made six recommendations to the Airports Commission:

1 – The Commission should call on all parties to support and instigate the work needed to lift the planning cap on flights at Heathrow to permit more flights.  Heathrow is the UK’s international hub airport and is where demand is highest and capacity most constrained. Using both runways for take-off and landing (“mixed mode”) could permit some 50,000 additional Air Traffic Movements (ATMs) per year.

2 – The Commission should call on Heathrow to provide public assurance and concrete proposals that, under a higher ATM cap, the right balance can be struck between more flights and fewer delays.  Operating at near capacity means that Heathrow currently has very little resilience against delays. If more ATMs are permitted, some of this potential capacity must be reserved to provide a buffer against the causes of delays, such as bad weather or a late arriving flight.

3 – The Commission should call on Government to review noise at Heathrow in the context of a higher ATM cap; and to establish an independent regulator to enforce noise levels when more flights are introduced.  Although the number affected by aircraft noise from Heathrow has fallen by more than 80% in recent years, any increase in ATMs must be accompanied by measures to mitigate the impact of noise.  Even with the increase in ATMs offered by mixed mode the number of people affected by current aircraft noise levels can be reduced, but an independent noise regulator with enforcement powers should be established by Parliament.

 4 – The Commission should call on the Secretary of State to make an unequivocal statement supporting an increase in ATMs at Heathrow and to treat any application for the introduction of Mixed Mode under the 2008 Planning Act regime, on the basis that such an application is of national significance.  To increase the number of ATMs permitted at Heathrow would require the Secretary of State for Transport to designate the move to mixed mode as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. This enables numerous consents previously required for certain projects to be wrapped into one single Development Consent Order. In this way, the necessary increase in capacity could be achieved within five years.

 5 – The Commission should recommend that Gatwick and Stansted be allowed to compete more effectively and should call on the CAA to apply the back-stop and price-monitoring powers it already has without imposing an economic licence.  The economic regulation of London’s main airports dates back to a time when all three were owned by one company. Since this is no longer the case, and neither Gatwick nor Stansted can be considered to have market dominance, the regime should be liberalised so that they can compete effectively with each other and with Heathrow.  This will encourage downward pressure on prices, increased choice, and the more extensive use of current capacity.

 6 – The Commission should call on government and Network Rail to deliver a step change improvement in the capacity and quality of rail services to Gatwick and Stansted, strengthening these airports’ ability to attract airlines and passengers. Rail services to Gatwick are hampered by poor quality rolling stock and uncertainty over the future of non-stop services. Stansted suffers from historic underinvestment in a slow service that does not operate at times of peak demand. Both should be brought up to the same standards as those serving other airports, notably Heathrow.

View the full submission

 Ends

 Notes to editors: London First is a business membership organisation with the mission to make London the best city in the world in which to do business. Its submission is informed by the conclusions of its Steering Group of business leaders, established to examine the capacity and quality of London’s transport links. The submission reflects London First’s views on short term solutions.

The Airports Commission was set up by the government to assess the UK’s long- term aviation capacity needs.  It is chaired by Sir Howard Davies.  It will publish an interim report later this year and a full report after the next general election.

For further information please contact: Fran Edwards, Media Relations Manager,     E: fedwards@londonfirst.co.uk  D: 020 7665 1427  M: 07535 977004

Today, Tuesday 7 May, TfL has published its findings.

Read a summary of the results from TfL’s River Crossings consultation

There was over 70% support for each of the fixed link (bridge/tunnel) options, with the strongest support for the Silvertown tunnel (77%).

• 71% of respondents supported a fixed link at Gallions Reach by 2021 and 72% support a fixed link at Gallions Reach by 2031 (if a ferry does not adequately address the area’s needs)
• The proportions who opposed the fixed links were 15% for the Silvertown Tunnel, 15% for the Gallions Reach fixed link in 2031 and 16% for the Gallions Reach fixed link in 2021.
• Overall 51% of respondents support a new ferry at Woolwich and 52% support a new ferry at Gallions Reach. However, there is more opposition to the Gallions Reach ferry option than the Woolwich ferry option: 22% compared to 19%.
• 55% of respondents opposed a toll for the new crossings and also the Blackwall tunnel and a third supported it (14% strongly supported it).
• The support for each of the fixed link crossings is greater than the opposition to the toll. But less than the support for the ferry options.

In response to the findings of Transport for London’s consultation on proposals to improve cross-river travel in east and south east London, London First Chief Executive, Baroness Jo Valentine said:

“It is striking to see the strength of support for more river crossings – 77% of respondents expressed support for a tunnel, between the Greenwich Peninsula and Silvertown and over 70% favoured a bridge, rather than a ferry, further down the river at Gallions Reach near Beckton to Woolwich.

“The Mayor and TfL must now push on with developing proposals to introduce both crossings rather than just one. Additional river crossings will not only relieve existing congestion but will also support economic growth and regeneration.”

Read the full report here

Commenting on the report, Baroness Jo Valentine, Chief Executive of London First, said:

“The assembly is right that there is capacity for more flights at some of London’s airports – London is open for business, but it could be more so.

“The extra capacity will fill quickly and capacity constraints at Heathrow – which is full – in turn restrict choice for airlines and passengers now; as do the arcane constraints on Stansted and Gatwick which limit their flexibility to compete for growth.

“Ultimately, we need at least two further runways somewhere in the South East, but in the immediate future we need to free up Stansted and Gatwick to compete and to use Heathrow’s two runways more intensively so that we can create the best conditions for the London and the UK’s growth.”

1. The Treasury’s Infrastructure Plan is a list of projects, not a real plan with a strategic vision and clear priorities.
2. Uncertainty over government policy can deter or delay investment in infrastructure projects and lead to additional costs.
3. It is not clear what level of Government support will be required to ensure that these investment projects proceed.
4. Investors must accept some degree of transparency over their costs, risks and rewards in delivering infrastructure projects given that the costs of government support will ultimately fall on taxpayers and consumers.
5. Consumers will bear the brunt of the costs of the projects in the Infrastructure Plan through higher charges but the burden they face has not been quantified.

The full report and detailed recommendations can be found here.

London First’s 2010 report ‘World Class Infrastructure for a World Class City’ can be found here, with our 35 recommendations to delivery short, medium and long term improvements to the way London’s infrastructure is run, planned, financed and delivered.

“The key issue identified in this report is that the governance of the West End is fragmented between different councils and tiers of government.  None of these have the incentive to look out for the interests of business, those who work in the West End or those who visit it.  The West End is a unique and vital part of London and the UK’s economy and it must be run accordingly.

“We strongly support the Commission’s recommendation for a new governance and leadership model for the West End, which brings together local councils, the Mayor and businesses and is based on further devolution from central government. Business is ready to play its part; is London’s government?”

Speech by Jane Archer, Executive Director, Policy, to The Future of Financial Services Summit

More than five years have passed since the start of the crisis and it is easy to get the impression that little has changed – so I am pleased to have the opportunity today to share thoughts on how to get beyond the current negative environment and target a new settlement.

Speaking on behalf of London First – and for those of you who do not know us, we are a business organisation whose mission is to make London the best city in the world to do business – I am interested in sustaining London’s leading position as a global business hub and in addressing barriers constraining the UK’s return to sustained growth.

Restoring trust in our financial services sector is vital to both of these.

London’s position as a global business hub is dependent on its role as an international financial centre.  London is a centre of excellence in many fields from research to engineering; healthcare to new tech industries.  However, without the international reputation of our financial and associated professional services; the talent they attract; and the wider activities they support; it is questionable whether globally mobile corporates and individuals would choose London for their home.

In terms of supporting growth, not only is the financial services sector itself a substantial provider of jobs and economic activity, it also generates income for many other businesses from restaurants and coffee shops to property developments and theatres.  But this is only part of the story, as the financial services community, incorporating banking, insurance and other investment sectors, sources not only the finance but also the risk management tools required for investment.

And, while not the focus of today’s discussion, it is always worth remembering, especially in light of our stubbornly persistent budget deficit, the significant contribution financial services makes to the exchequer.

It is clear that the economy will not return to sustained growth without financial services playing a significant role.

However, the financial crisis destroyed trust in the banking sector (irrespective as to whether certain institutions played any role in the events).  Trust was lost across the board with bank structures, leaders, and the wider stability of international finance all being brought into question. Once trust is lost it takes a long time to restore and the various issues that have come to light in more recent years – LIBOR, PPI, etc – have meant this process had struggled to even start.

So where from here?

Well, I believe that a great deal of progress has already been made – although this is often not the message received by the public.

• In terms of increasing the stability of international finance, international and domestic regulation has and is being introduced to deliver this by requiring increased capital requirements, resolution and recovery plans, and structural change such as ring fencing.  And while to date regulation has been a necessary response to many issues, and targeted and proportionate regulation will yield positive results, we must be careful not to over regulate as excess regulatory burden, or poorly designed or implemented regulation, risks further burdening business with additional costs of finance or a loss of product availability further hindering the road to economic recovery.  Likewise, unnecessarily going beyond international agreements to make the UK regulatory regime more burdensome than elsewhere risks pushing valued activity offshore, threatening UK jobs, gdp and tax receipts.

While allowing time to let the new regulations bed down we must also now look beyond regulation to find solutions.

• Leadership – the departure of Bob Diamond I believe was an important turning point.  However, more has changed than the Barclays leadership, since the crisis the chairman, CEOs, executive and non-executive board directors of many of our leading banking institutions have changed. With these changes has come a new approach which leads me to my next point, culture.
• Culture takes time to instil. However, the new leadership in many of the banks have been clear in their mission.  The need for a longer term approach that targets sustainable profit rather than rewarding short term results has been accepted.  That said, more needs to be done to get the message embedded across institutions and to get it believed by customers.

And while in terms of the reputation of the banking sector we may have (hopefully) hit the bottom and began to climb out, there is inevitably going to be more bad news to come.  To prevent this holding up progress or pushing us back we need this news to be properly dealt with.  That means actual wrong doing being seen to have consequences for both individuals and institutions and the banks being transparent about what went wrong and the changes they have made to prevent a repeat.  It also means that where issues relate to a time when a previous culture or leadership prevailed, that this is recognised and accepted by policy makers and commentators so that the new regime is given room to succeed.

In summary we need to all work together to forge a new settlement.  The banks have the key role but business, Government, media and other stakeholders also must play their part.  We need a collaborative approach across the industry and beyond to change the image, rebuild the trust and to once again ensure our financial services sector is both valued and valuable.