---

Heathrow

I have less than 15 minutes to respond to a six-hour debate, so if I have time at the end, I will come back to my hon. Friend. To that end, I hope that the House accepts that we are making great efforts to involve as many people and organisations as possible, at every level, in what has been a lengthy and exhaustive consultative exercise. We have been clear that any development would depend on the strict environmental criteria being met; again, a huge amount of work has been carried out in that area. I turn to some of the points raised in the debate. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs. Villiers) claims that we are scrapping alternation. I am sure that she knows we are consulting on that, as we are on the Cranford agreement and westerly preference, as well as on the crucial question of the third runway. She says that we have no plans on surface access, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned Crossrail, the improved Piccadilly line and Airtrack, to name just a few. On her allegations of collusion and reverse engineering, she knows, because we have discussed this before, that we need to lay down restrictions within which the airport must operate. The 2003 White Paper clearly stated that the airport operator, BAA, should work with the Government, the Civil Aviation Authority and NATS to develop proposals consistent with conditions laid down by the Government. It would not have been sensible or possible to attempt that work without the technical and operational expertise of the airport operator. BAA was therefore asked to advise on how operations at the airport might need to be adjusted or aircraft movement numbers lowered to help meet environmental constraints. The hon. Lady also claimed that the Government invented the 450-seater plane to meet the Heathrow challenge. The aircraft in question was assumed to be a stretched version of an existing aircraft, the Boeing 777-300, and to be due to enter service some time after 2020. It is a fairly standard approach by manufacturers to extend the life of an original design by upgrading it in this fashion over time. The hon. Lady said that the forecasts for 2003 were not still valid. In 2007, revised air traffic forecasts were published alongside the consultation. Further updates will be provided at the time of the decision later this year. On the economic arguments, the hon. Lady claimed a negative impact on local prosperity and housing prices. However, that was disputed by other Conservative Members. She also claimed that there would be no effect on Heathrow if present levels were continued, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State clearly spelt out both the reduced number of destinations being served by Heathrow, the increasing number of UK residents flying to the continent to connect, and the reduction in access from regional airports. The Opposition announced on 29 September that a full high-speed rail network could add £60 billion to the UK’s wealth, with £5.2 billion for Birmingham. Earlier this year, Atkins estimated benefits of just over £60 billion over a 60-year period for a full network of high-speed lines at a cost of approximately £30 billion—not the benefits associated with the Conservatives’ scheme. The Opposition also claim that a high-speed rail link could replace up to 66,500 flights a year and free almost a third of the capacity that would be provided by a third runway. The total number of flights from Manchester and Leeds-Bradford was less than 3 per cent. of Heathrow’s total flights—approximately 13,000 over the past 12 months. Even if the capacity of every flight from Manchester and Leeds-Bradford were transferred to a new high-speed rail line, Heathrow would still be operating at 97 per cent. capacity. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said that this decision was about BAA’s profit margin, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out that it was about the economic case for UK plc, not for BAA. My hon. Friend asked about the Sustainable Development Commission and said that the Government should revise their aviation policy. If I may advise him, I can tell him that the SDC’s views ignore the extensive consultation before the White Paper and our thorough and detailed analysis. He also stated that the consultation said nothing about land and compensation costs. I can assure him that the impact assessment, published last November, did assess compensation costs and impacts in terms of land take, heritage, green belt and other matters. The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) raised the question of collusion. I intervened on him to refute that, and I covered the point a moment ago. He suggested that the emissions trading scheme would stifle flights. It may have an impact, but it is designed to deal with the predicted increase in aviation in the years ahead to ensure that the industry pays for the increase expected, not to strangle it and kill it off. We have laid down our targets in the Climate Change Bill and the ETS for aviation will play its part. He also raised the question of NOx, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State outlined how we intend to comply with the directive. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman), the Chair of the Transport Committee, recalled its conclusions about the difficulties of passengers at Heathrow in 2003 and outlined why it agreed in principle with the Government’s position. However, she also raised important issues including alternative fuels, the impact of the economic climate and, especially now, the importance of Heathrow as an international hub. The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) explained that he was in a dilemma about whether to support those on his Front Bench. As a former Whip, that must have indeed taxed him. However, he explained the arguments that persuaded him. He said that he wanted a better Heathrow, not just a bigger one, and used terminal 5 to illustrate his point. He expressed his confidence in and experience of improved noise and emissions, but explained that the environmental impacts and protections were still critical for him. My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Alan Keen) expressed concern about the ending of alternation and, as I have said, the Secretary of State covered that as part of the consultation. My hon. Friend mentioned that he would be flying to Teesside for a Boro game soon—I wish him a safe trip, if not the three points, especially if they are playing West Ham. I am sure that he is right to say that the world economic situation will have an effect on aviation, but that may be short term, and it remains to be seen how great that effect will be. The hon. comrade for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) complimented the speeches of his neighbours and put his own views strongly, as he has done on several occasions. He also referred to his Whip’s dilemma and the conclusion that he reached, which was to oppose the third runway. My hon. Friend—and former ministerial colleague—the Member for Glasgow, South (Mr. Harris) outlined his belief in an economic impact if Heathrow does not improve, and said that the business community would give up on Heathrow over delays, stacking and poor service. He expressed concern about the delivery of the Crossrail project if additional capacity at Heathrow did not proceed. The hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) mentioned the quality of the passenger experience at Heathrow and cited terminal 5 as a good example of the way forward. Terminal 3 has had its facelift, terminal 4’s refurbishment should be finished next year, and terminals 1 and 2 will be replaced by Heathrow East—a change scheduled for 2012. That is a multi-billion pound investment, which I am sure that he would welcome. He asked for evidence about the negative impacts on Heathrow. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State outlined in his speech that they would include fewer destinations, reduced access for UK airports and more citizens moving to Europe. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) made a strong plea for more use of regional airports. She argued for the development of airports such as Cardiff. She is right, of course. The 2003 White Paper supported the development of UK airports, including Cardiff, and they have grown significantly in the years since then. The Government are keen that regional airports should grow to support local demand, as well as to reduce demand at Heathrow, but they will not do that at the levels that could reduce the need for expansion at Heathrow. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer) raised the subject of alternation. She also asked me to secure a meeting with my noble Friend the Minister responsible for railways. I will ensure that he is aware of her request. She raised the subject of schools. A third runway would impact on 25 schools and nurseries, and mixed mode would impact on 43, not the 20,000 that she mentioned. My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) mentioned continuous descent approach. CDA would be reduced, in all probability, by mixed mode, but the benefits of CDA are largely outside the 57 dB noise contour. I am advised that there would not be a huge increase in noise, as alleged. He also mentioned noise impacts in terminal 5, as raised by Roy Vandermeer QC. The precautionary principle led Roy Vandermeer to recommend a noise contour of 145 sq km at 57 dB by 2016. The area is now about 120 sq km, and it is important to acknowledge the improvement in the noise climate that has already been delivered. We are committed to not exceeding the 127 sq km contour in the future. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) raised the question of conflict between noise and safety, and the potential impact of added capacity. My right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) outlined why he is not convinced. He unfairly said that the Secretary of State was not concerned with environmental targets, when the Secretary of State had clearly covered the point in his opening speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West raised the problems with Thames valley surface access to Heathrow. He quoted liberally from the Labour party briefing, which amused right hon. and hon. Members in the Opposition but stated the case: no decision has been taken, and environmental protections must be met. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) expressed some discomfort about supporting additional capacity as a north-west MP, but explained how he arrived at his conclusion. In a thoughtful speech, he explained how his experience at Manchester airport helped his conclusions. The hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening), who has been consistently opposed to any increased capacity, raised the ANASE report, public transport and surface access, access to information, joined-up government—or what she saw as a lack of it—and the risks as she sees them. I apologise to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd), the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands), my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd’s Bush (Mr. Slaughter) and the hon. Members for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) and for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) for being unable to respond in detail to their contributions. In conclusion, to round off the comments on the economic impact, I want to refer to the CBI briefing for this debate—[Interruption.] It states on page 2— [Interruption.] I know that Opposition Members do not want to hear this, but it states:"““Surveys of business opinion have consistently demonstrated the importance of Heathrow…Nine out of ten companies surveyed in London or in areas close…said that they regarded the airport as either ‘vital’ or ‘very important’…80 per cent. of businesses””—" [Interruption.]