Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Martin Salter (Labour) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 11 November 2008. It occurred during Debate on Heathrow.


Heathrow

I would like to apologise to the House for giving way to that intervention. The Government have clearly made no decision. I am a loyal member of the parliamentary Labour party, and I hold in my hand its briefing. It clearly says—it is the job of Back-Bench MPs to read this into the record—that:"““No decisions on Heathrow have yet been taken””," so Members can proceed with this debate with a degree of confidence. It also says:"““Since the 2003 Air Transport White Paper, the Government has been clear that it supports the economic case for a third runway at Heathrow, subject to being confident of meeting strict local environmental conditions on noise, air quality and surface access.””" There is a way for the Government to get off this hook. There is a way where they do not have to cede the economic argument—which does exist, and I have not attempted to take it apart today—about the importance of Heathrow and the need for it to expand. Their previous statements made it clear that the environmental and access considerations would be paramount. Those preconditions have not been met. We also know that technology is advancing—BAA makes that case—and there may well come a point when air travel is not so environmentally damaging and does not produce as many emissions as at present. As technology advances and aircraft are manufactured that are capable of carrying more people around with fewer flight movements and less disruption, there may be a case for a third runway at some point in the future. At this stage, however, why does the Secretary of State not sign up to the following three simple principles? First, there will be no expansion of Heathrow airport and no third runway without a vote in this House. Secondly, until we are able to take advantage of advancing technology to address the emissions issues, there will be no decision on a third runway. Thirdly, will the Secretary of State stick to the promise that was solemnly made in the 2003 aviation White Paper that until we resolve the all-important and overarching environmental issues, we will not proceed with a third runway at London Heathrow airport?


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
482 c715-6 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Aviation Construction Airports Air routes Heathrow Airport Pollution Noise
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk