Baker, Kramer and Webb on Heathrow

8.25.10pm BST (GMT +0100) Mon 7th Apr 2008

[Apr 02] Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat): I beg to move, That this House recognises the urgent need to curb carbon dioxide emissions to tackle climate change; . .

. . condemns the Government for following policies that will instead lead to significant growth in emissions from the aviation sector; particularly condemns plans to allow a third runway at Heathrow; believes that the consultation paper Adding Capacity at Heathrow Airport was deeply flawed and is concerned at the undue influence BAA played in the drafting of the paper; notes that the paper significantly overstated the economic case for a third runway while greatly underplaying the serious environmental consequences, including, as well as the extra emissions from flights, the increase in intensity and distribution of noise for those living under the flight path through runway alternation and the threat of forced relocation for the inhabitants of Sipson village; and calls on the Government to withdraw permanently plans for a third runway at Heathrow, to keep the present cap of 480,000 flights per year as opposed to the 700,000 envisaged in the consultation document, to rule out any further increase in airport capacity in the South East, and to indicate to the aviation sector that it will have to live within its existing infrastructure capacity.

We are starting the debate marginally later than I thought we would. I can conclude only that the Conservatives have some reason for delaying its start-perhaps they do not want to talk about their chaotic policy on Heathrow and aviation. I note that an eight-minute limit on speeches applies, so it was rather unfair to take 15 minutes away with an unnecessary Division.

The Government's policy on aviation is described in their amendment to the motion as a "balanced and sustainable aviation strategy". I wonder whether the person who wrote that had any shame-I do not know whether it was written by a Minister, a Whip or an official in the Department for Transport- whether the Government are past that stage or, indeed, whether, as with much of the consultation paper, it was in fact written by someone from BAA plc, with glee rather than with shame.

As far as aviation is concerned, it seems that the Government live in a sort of bubble, in which climate change does not exist. The rest of Government policy is designed to drive down carbon emissions, making a 60 or 80 per cent. cut by 2050, but aviation somehow does not come into that picture and has to live on its own. I am interested in the comments made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), a former Environment Minister. He said:

"During my 18 undistinguished months as a minister"- I think he was being ungenerous- "whose responsibilities included aviation, I learned two things. First, that the demands of the aviation industry are insatiable. Second, that successive Governments have usually given way to them. Although nowadays the industry pays lip service to the notion of sustainability, its demands are essentially unchanged. It wants more of everything-airports, runways, terminals." That is still the case.

Alan Keen (Feltham & Heston, Labour): I might have been tempted, because of my constituency interest, to vote for the Liberal Democrat motion. Unfortunately, it seems to have got mixed up. Lines nine and 10 refer to "the increase in intensity and distribution of noise...through runway alternation". In fact the increase in intensity and distribution of noise for my constituents and those who live in the neighbouring constituencies to the east would be caused by the end of that runway alternation. I am afraid I shall have to vote against the motion.

Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat): Noise will increase because of the ending of runway alternation; that is quite true.

Justine Greening (Putney, Conservative): The Lib Dem motion calls for the end of the thing that my constituents value most, which is the half-day respite from aircraft noise that results from runway alternation, which the motion says is a bad thing. Furthermore, the motion does not call on the Government to rule out that problem, although it calls on them to rule out a third runway. That leaves the door open for flights over my constituency all day, every day.

Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat): That is not the intention of the motion, as the hon. Lady knows very well.

David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat): I have already given way twice; I must make some progress. [ Interruption. ] All right, go on.

David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative): The hon. Gentleman has admitted that one bit of his motion is a load of rubbish. Will he tell us which other bits are also a load of rubbish?

Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat): I knew I should not have given way. That intervention is not worth responding to, I am sorry to say.

I quoted the hon. Member for Sunderland, South. It is worth mentioning that in 1995 BAA put in an application for a fifth terminal, as we know, which opened with all the chaos that we saw last week. At the time, it promised that that would not lead to a third runway. Permission was given on that basis. Whenever the aviation industry says, "This is all we want," it always goes further. It always comes back for more. It is never the final line.

BAA is like some kind of fiendish drug addict and the Government are its willing dealer, and they do not even charge a decent price or the market rate. I shall come on to the consultation document in a moment, but there are serious questions about the Government's independence in relation to the aviation industry and whether it is subject to regulatory capture.

Claire Curtis-Thomas (PPS (Rt Hon Baroness Scotland of Asthal QC, Attorney General), Law Officers' Department, Crosby, Labour): I am rather alarmed by some of the descriptions of BAA. Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that BAA's expansion plans for Heathrow are a direct result of its being the largest international airport in the world and the unprecedented demand, which produces a significant number of jobs in the UK and provides us with a robust industry that we want to support?

Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat): I do not agree with all that. For a start, I do not agree that that is a cause. BAA has continually asked for expansion, and the Government have followed the predict-and-provide policy. Of course, if space is provided it fills up. The Government recognise that with roads. They abandoned the idea of predict-and-provide for roads but not for aviation. However, I shall come on to the economic case later.

John Redwood (Wokingham, Conservative): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat): I must make some progress. I have taken, I think, six-[Hon. Members: "Come on!"] All right.

John Redwood (Wokingham, Conservative): I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because this is a debate. Why does the Liberal party believe that if we restrict capacity at Heathrow that will reduce aviation? Those on the continent would be massively grateful. Charles de Gaulle, Schiphol and all the rest would expand their capacity and we might end up with more emissions rather than fewer. Surely the solution to the emissions problem is to press for a new generation of more fuel-efficient and quieter aircraft, which are what we need, rather than trying to hamstring our industry at home.

Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat): I note the unholy alliance between the right hon. Gentleman and the Government Front Benchers, who agreed on that point. That is part of the problem. Of course we want improvements in aircraft design and want to limit emissions per aircraft if we can do so. However, providing extra capacity generates more flights. That is the point the right hon. Gentleman refuses to accept. The flights generated will partly be short-haul flights, the need for which could be met by long-distance, high-speed rail. The right hon. Gentleman, who does not like railways, refuses to acknowledge that point.

The right hon. Gentleman also refuses to acknowledge the serious impact of climate change, which nobody has so far mentioned. The impact of aviation on climate change is quite clear. It contributes about 6 per cent. of the UK's carbon emissions, compared with 24 per cent. from road traffic, but since 1990 the proportion of carbon emissions from aviation has more than doubled. Emissions from air travel are due to rise by 83 per cent. from 2002 levels by 2020, and could amount to a quarter of the UK's total contribution to climate change by 2038. How does that significant increase in carbon emissions from aviation square with the Government's stated policy of securing a 60 per cent. cut in carbon emissions by 2050? Why is aviation exempt from that target?

Justine Greening (Putney, Conservative): I am slightly perplexed, because the Liberal Democrat motion mentions ruling out any further expansion in the south-east. It therefore seems to suggest that a plane taking off from Manchester somehow emits less CO2 than one taking off from Gatwick. Is that what the hon. Gentleman is saying, or is it another mistake in the motion?

Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat): The reality is that the motion does not mention flights from Senegal, but that does not mean that we are not interested in flights from Senegal. That was a ridiculous intervention by the hon. Lady.

I shall move on to other aspects of the environmental impact of the proposed third runway.

David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat): I will not, because I have given way on eight or nine occasions and I am six minutes into the debate.

Let us consider the other impacts of the third runway, apart from the impact on climate change. The Government admit that air pollution levels at Heathrow will exceed the EU legal limits if a third runway is built. They have had to get BAA to try to massage the figures in order to find a way of getting round that problem.

There are particular issues in relation to road transport. The Department for Transport estimated in a parliamentary answer I received the other day that a third runway at Heathrow would create an extra 1.2 million journeys on the underground, 2.3 million journeys on heavy rail and 10.2 million journeys by car and taxi. The assumptions made in the "Adding capacity at Heathrow" document-a loaded title if ever I heard one-are simply not credible. It estimates that the public transport annual mode share will increase from 36.2 per cent. in 2004 to 41.7 per cent. in 2030, more than doubling the number of passengers. Where will that capacity on public transport come from? There are no plans to provide it in the Government's expansion plans.

Ruth Kelly (Secretary of State, Department for Transport): What about Crossrail?

Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat): Crossrail is very welcome, but it will not provide sufficient capacity to enable more than double the current number of passengers to be transported to Heathrow airport. That increase is in addition to the anticipated growth in demand for London underground services, which is estimated to be 50 per cent. by 2020.

The consultation document also states that a third runway would require the provision of rail services to manage 1,600 passengers an hour-two thirds of the current capacity available on the Heathrow Express and Heathrow Connect services. Those calculations are based on actual passenger numbers and do not include a consideration of the additional journeys to be made by people accompanying friends and family to the airport. It is perfectly plain that the Government are making no plans to take properly into account the extra journeys that will be made to the airport, whether by road, underground or heavy rail. There are no plans for investment to meet the predictions of the journeys that will be generated.

David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative): The hon. Gentleman has got some facts wrong, and clearly some of his research has not gone very far, either. Has he not come across the proposal to build a brand new railway, AirTrack, through my constituency, which will go a long way towards solving the problems he is talking about?

Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat): I maintain my point that the more than doubling of the number of people expected to travel by public transport cannot be accommodated by one project.

Susan Kramer (Richmond Park, Liberal Democrat): Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government have not committed the funding that would enable AirTrack to be built in such a way that it did not completely close off most suburban commuter services through south-west London, including by bringing down level crossings for 45 minutes of every hour at peak time?

Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat): That point is very relevant, and of course the Conservative party has not committed itself to that project, even if it did have the beneficial effects to which the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) referred.

There is also a problem with air pollution. The 2003 aviation White Paper stated that air quality levels must remain consistently within EU limits coming into effect in 2010. Of course, that would represent an improvement in air quality in residential areas compared with what obtains today.

How is it possible for that target to be met, if the Government are anticipating yet another expansion of Heathrow? It seems to me incredible that the Government can imagine that more flights, runways and terminals will lead to less pollution, lower emissions and fewer environmental problems. However, that almost seems to be what the Government's consultation document claims.

Another problem is the impact on the local area. If plans for a third runway were to go ahead, BAA has estimated that at least 700 homes in the area would have to be demolished, affecting some 1,600 people. In addition, the village of Sipson would disappear off the map by 2020, and many ancient buildings would be destroyed. Residents at Harlington and Harmondsworth would be evicted, and thousands more would be seriously hit by the increase in noise and air pollution. Other villages such as Hanford and Longford would also be affected.

Nick Palmer (PPS (Malcolm Wicks, Minister of State), Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform, Broxtowe, Labour): I have some sympathy with some of the hon. Gentleman's points about the aviation industry, but is he aware that the union Unite has said that a cap on the number of flights such as the one proposed in the motion would cause as many as 20,000 jobs to be lost in the local area?

Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat): No, I do not accept that.

Andrew MacKinlay (Thurrock, Labour): I should like to say something about Unite, of which I am a member. Employers always find the unions that they need when it suits them, and unions always foolishly swallow it. It was always claimed that there would be social and political armageddon in south-west London when duty-free finished, but that was nonsense. By the same token, it is utter rubbish to suggest that there will be employment implications if the Heathrow expansion does not go ahead. Moreover, accepting that proposition on employment for terminal 5 means accepting it for terminals 6, 7, 8 and so on forever. I love the Unite union very much, but that suggestion is complete rubbish.

Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat): I am grateful for that intervention, and for the hon. Gentleman sharing his knowledge on the matter.

I deal now with noise pollution in particular. There is no doubt that the expansion of Heathrow will result in extra noise pollution for local residents. The key figure quoted by the Government is 57 dB, as that is the level at which community annoyance sets in. BAA has estimated that more than 250,000 people now live inside the 57 dB contour. They are therefore affected already, but the proposed expansion will make the problem much worse.

In fact, the problem is even more serious, as the World Health Organisation has challenged the Government's view on noise thresholds. It has argued that 50 dB is the appropriate level for determining annoyance, and that 55 dB constitutes serious annoyance. Therefore, even according to the BAA figures, it is clear that all the people in the immediate area are experiencing serious annoyance, according to the WHO definition.

In November 2007 the Government published a study entitled "Attitudes to Noise from Aviation Sources in England", and Ministers will know that it reinforces the WHO's argument very strongly. Although there are "only" 250,000 residents in Heathrow's 57 dB area, another 2 million people live within the 50 dB area. Adding those figures together gives us the total number of people the WHO believe are being affected by noise pollution at the present time, so what will the total be if the planned expansion goes ahead?

The Government said that they would not go ahead with Heathrow expansion if the number of people living in the 57 dB area increased. How will the Government square having a third runway with that pledge on noise? We have heard nothing about that.

In addition, the new flight path will pass over such places as Heston, Chiswick, north Hammersmith, Kensington and Chelsea, Langley, Slough and Maidenhead. A total of 150,000 people live in those areas, but do the Government believe that they do not count?

On top of all that, Heathrow expansion would have significant impacts on health. The 1999 study into public health impacts at large airports that was carried out for the Dutch Government found evidence to suggest that exposure to the sort of air pollution levels observed within an airport's operations system-and in that sense Heathrow is the largest airport in the world-was linked to higher mortality rates, and to more frequent hospital admissions as a result of the aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular problems. The study also found that air pollution was linked to decreased lung function, and an increase in chronic respiratory conditions. What assessment have the Government made of the current health implications for people who live near Heathrow, and what assessment have they made, seriously, of the implications if a third runway is given the go-ahead?

David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat): I have given way to the hon. Gentleman twice, and the last time it was not worth doing so, so he will forgive me if I do not give way now.

David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative): I was going to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman.

Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat): The hon. Gentleman said that he would be helpful last time. On the issue of children and education, I refer the Secretary of State to the European Commission's RANCH project on road traffic and aircraft noise exposure, which found a clear link between aircraft noise and delays in reading age. A 5 dB increase in noise level was linked to children being up to two months behind in their reading age. Those are serious issues for people who live in the Heathrow area, and they are not being addressed; they are being skated over. The Government are not taking into account health or the environment; they are considering only BAA.

A third runway would increase flights at Heathrow from 477,000-we were promised that that would be the maximum-to 720,000 a year. That is a huge increase, and it is contrary to a statement made in 2001 by one of the Secretary of State's predecessors, the right hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mr. Byers), who said of terminal 5:

"we are making it a planning condition that there will be a limit of 480,000 flight movements a year."-[ Official Report, 20 November 2001; Vol. 375, c. 183.]

That pledge was made firmly by her predecessor less than seven years ago, but it is being torn up, and the Government apparently anticipate a virtual doubling of flights into Heathrow.

Susan Kramer (Richmond Park, Liberal Democrat): I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, because it touches on the sense of betrayal that my constituents feel. Not only did the Government agree that they would cap flights at 480,000, but Sir John Egan, chairman of BAA, said that BAA would urge the Government to rule out an additional runway at Heathrow if permission were given for terminal 5. On the basis of that trust, approval for terminal 5 was given, only for that agreement to be torn up three weeks after the planning inspector's decision.

Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat): My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we can draw three lessons from that. The first is that the aviation industry is insatiable, as the hon. Member for Sunderland, South has said; the second is that Governments always give way; and the third is that when it comes to aviation, they do not keep their promises. In fact, they forget their promises and pretend that they have not made them. Another issue-the number of issues to do with Heathrow is almost endless-is the question of whether expansion is safe. That is an important and serious consideration.

John Horam (Orpington, Conservative): The hon. Gentleman makes an important point that he has not mentioned in his motion, although it is very much on my mind following the tragic air crash in Farnborough in my constituency on Sunday, in which five people died in a plane. It is a miracle that more people were not killed in the residential area that abuts Biggin Hill. When planning airport expansion, the Secretary of State ought to pay attention to the question of how close expansion should come to built-up residential areas with hospitals, schools and houses. It is a serious issue.

Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat): I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention; he makes an important point. Of course, because we are expanding Heathrow incrementally and constantly, the expansion will come up against existing settlements. Some will be demolished, but others will be left very close indeed to runways. That is worrying and needs to be considered.

Another safety issue is the question of how much traffic we can accommodate in the skies around Heathrow and over London. Will we have a system of stacking, which is environmentally unsustainable and churns out huge amounts of carbon emissions for no benefit? It is also suggested that stacking will result in a greater number of planes attempting to land at Heathrow than air traffic control can deal with. At the last Transport Question Time I put that point to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), who is responsible for aviation, and who is present today. I quoted to him a report in The Sunday Times that said that NATS and the CAA were of the view that there was insufficient airspace to accommodate the scale of predicted traffic growth, according to current predictive technology. In his response, the Minister said:

"The CAA has examined our White Paper proposals and believes that the necessary airspace capacity can be provided safely."-[ Official Report, 4 March 2008; Vol. 472, c. 20.]

I wrote to NATS, because I am a suspicious sort of person, and I got a letter back from it only yesterday. It is from the corporate and technical centre, so I suppose that the writers of the letter know what they are about. It says:

"NATS has not yet carried out detailed work as there has been no requirement for us to do so. We are not therefore able to advise at this stage on any specific airspace changes that may be required in support of any change in Government policy to permit expansion at Heathrow".

NATS has not carried out detailed work, and it has not been asked to carry out detailed work. How does that square with the assurance that the Minister gave me in Transport questions? More to the point, why has it not been asked to carry out that work? I should have thought that that was one of the first things that the Government ought to do.

Let us move on to the economic case. If there are all those environmental downsides to Heathrow, which there undoubtedly are; if there are concerns about health, which there are; and if there are concerns about safety, which there are, what are the overriding benefits that suggest that we should go ahead with the proposal? The Government keep saying that it is terribly important for Britain's economy, so it seems that in the equation they have set out for themselves we have the economic benefits on one side and virtually everything else on the other. Are those economic benefits so strong and so enormous that they outweigh all the disbenefits that I and many others have identified in the last weeks and months?

A couple of days ago, the Aviation Minister dealt with the urgent question on terminal 5 and told the House that

"the expansion of Heathrow is of fundamental importance to the economy of the United Kingdom. We believe that we have demonstrated that. It must take place and we have demonstrated how it can take place with the environmental protections that we have laid down...We are confident that, when we analyse the consultation...and publish our findings in the summer, our validation will be proved to be correct."-[ Official Report, 31 March 2008; Vol. 474, c. 434.]

That does not suggest that there is much of a consultation exercise going on, as the Government have already concluded that they will be proved right.

Angus MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar, Scottish National Party): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, whether we like it or not, the situation with Heathrow is as it is, that it is important to protect the landing slots from Scotland and, in particular, that there should be an expansion of landing slots from Inverness? We should have direct access to Heathrow from the highlands of Scotland, which is a large area. I hope he supports that.

Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat): I understand the position of those remote communities in particular, which have a stronger case for aviation links to London than do, dare I say it, those who are rather nearer to London but still arguing for expansion.

We have heard the arguments about Heathrow being important to the national economy, but how important is it? On the question of who uses Heathrow-this comes from another parliamentary answer that I received-26 per cent. of those passengers are international-to-international transit passengers. Apart from the benefits to BAA's airport shops, I am not clear about exactly what benefit is brought to the UK by 26 per cent. of passengers transferring from international airline to international airline. I say to the Minister that if all those people went to Schiphol, I do not see what the impact on the British economy would be.

There is a further contingent of passengers, which is those who transfer from domestic to international-a substantial number of people. Those passengers, of course, could be better served if there were perhaps more flights from places such as Manchester out to international destinations, rather than flights always going from Heathrow. But it suits BA to use Heathrow as a hub, moving planes into Heathrow and passengers-

David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat): I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman again in this debate. I am sorry, but I have already given way to him two or three times.

It very much suits BA to move passengers into Heathrow and then move them out again. It suits BAA for that to occur, because it means that those people can stay at Heathrow and use BAA's shops, spending lots of money. It does not much suit passengers, who would benefit from more direct flights. Nor does it suit the environment to have two flights instead of one. Does the Government's consultation paper consider whether there is a prospect of moving flights from Heathrow to other UK airports, which would obviate the need for a third runway?

Angus MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar, Scottish National Party): Unfortunately, I am a frequent traveller to Heathrow and, unfortunately, I had the largest travel expenses of any Member of this Parliament last year, given geography and the many flights that I have to take each week. I am often struck by the fact that, after coming down from Glasgow at high speed, flights end up stacking at Heathrow. Is there any way to slow flights down so that the need for stacking would be reduced and people could arrive in some sort of sequence, rather than spending their time stacked up over London, which, believe me, is very frustrating for passengers?

Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat): The hon. Gentleman makes a good point and what he refers to is a fault of the current system. We could eliminate some carbon emissions if we had better planning of flight arrivals. Trains do not all arrive at Victoria at the same time and have to wait outside the station for a platform to become vacant. There is a timetable, which brings those trains in at the appropriate time. That works most of the time at least. It ought to be possible for NATS to introduce a better system to avoid stacking. I am disappointed that the Government have not progressed that satisfactorily. If there are so many downsides to Heathrow environmentally, on health grounds and economically, what is the Government's amendment about? What is their consultation paper about? What is the motivation behind what they are trying to achieve? One must look carefully at the links between BAA and the Government to try to find some rationale for the position that the Government have adopted.

People in London particularly have been badly served by the consultation process that has taken place so far. The Minister will know that the consultation form, which was eight pages long, was widely regarded as full of jargon and technical language and difficult for the average person to understand, so already people were excluded from the consultation process. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer) reported the consultation process to the Plain English Campaign, which described it as "atrocious" and stated that

"no ordinary person with an interest in the plans could be expected to read and understand this".

BAA had a significant role in the consultation document. I notice that it even has the copyright for the photograph on the cover. The Government came out in favour of a third runway in 2003. They insisted that strict environmental targets should be met on air and noise pollution. That was a sensible policy, but what happened?

We found out from an article that was published recently in The Sunday Times that a senior civil servant, David Gray, was tasked with showing how the runway could be built without negative impacts, and showed that an additional runway would mean a lot more air pollution. How could that be avoided? That was his task. He was not tasked with receiving the data and producing a neutral report; he was tasked with fiddling the data and producing a report that was skewed towards BAA and produced the right result at the end.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) on her freedom of information request, which showed that the unsatisfactory initial results led to executives from BAA being given unrivalled access to Whitehall and confidential data so that they could select alternative input data for environmental predictions until they got the right results. That is a disgrace and it shows that the Government concluded in the consultation paper that a new airport the size of Gatwick, effectively, could be bolted on to Heathrow as a new runway without any adverse environmental impact. It is astonishing that they could have reached that conclusion.

We know from BAA that it now has as its director of public affairs Tom Kelly, Tony Blair's former Downing street spokesman, who famously called Dr. David Kelly a "Walter Mitty" character. It is perhaps Tom Kelly who is a "Walter Mitty" character living a fantasy life where there is no pollution from aircraft, where clean cars exist so there is no impact from the road movements to Heathrow, and where international flights can be discounted in the calculations of the air pollution that will result from any third runway.

Even the Government's advisory body, the Environment Agency, has unpicked the Department for Transport document and concluded that it is not sufficiently robust to support the construction of a third runway. It states:

"There are arguments for postponing irreversible investment decisions in the face of uncertainty".

I have not heard that uncertainty from the Government or from BAA. They appear to be quite certain that the environmental impact will be negative. They seem to dismiss concerns about health. They appear, however, to be sure that the economic benefits will be substantial. Is it not curious that the position that they have adopted is very similar to that adopted by BAA?

We know from BAA's previous predictions that they are unreliable. In the mid-1990s, BAA predicted that smaller aircraft would disappear, and when it lobbied for terminal 5, it said that there would be 453,000 flights at Heathrow by 2013. That is what BAA said in 1995. That figure was reached by July 2000. What it predicted would take 18 years took only five years.

Can the Minister answer one specific question? Why was it thought appropriate to exclude international flight arrivals from any calculation of the environmental impact arising from the third runway?

There is a revolving door between the Government and BAA; not only Tom Kelly is involved. Joe Irvin was a special adviser at Downing street and went on to become a director of public affairs at BAA. Another former BAA public affairs director is Stephen Hardwick, a former policy adviser to the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), the former Deputy Prime Minister. That new revolving door syndrome is a new version of Labour spin that goes round and round between BAA and the Government.

Claire Curtis-Thomas (PPS (Rt Hon Baroness Scotland of Asthal QC, Attorney General), Law Officers' Department, Crosby, Labour): I am concerned about the notion that BAA, which at the height of the construction project for the new terminal had 60,000 employees on site and a budget of £4.3 billion, might operate on its own without any reference to the Government. Frankly, I am delighted that it went to the Government and sought consultation on the exercise. Any investment of that scale, employing such numbers of people, should be of interest to the Government.

Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat): It is perfectly proper for any institution in this country to seek investment, and it is appropriate then for a consultation exercise to be undertaken. It is perfectly normal for large corporations, bodies, pressure groups or others to engage with the Government at the appropriate juncture; there is nothing wrong in that.

What is wrong about this issue is that a line has been crossed because BAA has been involved in writing the consultation paper. It has not simply provided facts and figures, as it maintains-the memos that the hon. Member for Putney helped to secure show that it went much further than that. They show that BAA was helpfully redrafting and suggesting to the Government how particular information could be eliminated and how particular environmental outcomes could be redrafted. It was sending memos to that effect to the Government.

That worries me, because the Department for Transport appears to be subject to regulatory capture by BAA. That should worry the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas); she is getting a response not from her Government, but from BAA. BAA is perfectly within its rights to lobby and make its case, but not to take over the aviation policy of the Department for Transport, although it appears to have done that to a large degree in respect of Heathrow.

John Randall (Uxbridge, Conservative): I would like clarification on where the hon. Gentleman's party stands on runway alternation, bearing in mind the text of its motion.

Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat): We are in favour of ending- [Interruption.] No, I mean that the motion should have said "ending".

Susan Kramer (Richmond Park, Liberal Democrat): As the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) will undoubtedly have noticed, a cap of 480,000 is permanently and firmly placed on flights at Heathrow. Ending runway alternation would add another 45,000 flights; it is therefore impossible for the motion to be read in any other way than that runway alternation should be preserved and that mixed mode should not be introduced.

Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat): I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I referred to the word "ending"; I concede that, unfortunately, it is missing from the motion. I accept that it is missing, and I am sorry about it. That one word is missing. I suggest that Conservative Members will have their own explaining to do in a moment about their own policy. The motion leads to no interpretation other than our total opposition to a third runway at Heathrow. We are clear that a third runway there has to be stopped at all events and under all circumstances. The House should be in no doubt whatever about that.

Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet, Conservative): Will the hon. Gentleman repeat what he said a few minutes ago-that the Liberal Democrats support ending runway alternation at Heathrow?

Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat): I have already answered that. Let me read the sentence from the motion:

"the increase in intensity and distribution of noise for those living under the flight path through"-

the word "ending" is missing-"runway alternation". Our policy could not be clearer. [Laughter.] Well, let me tell the House what the policy is in one sentence: it is to oppose any third runway at Heathrow under any circumstances. I challenge the Government and the Conservative Front Bencher to match that pledge. We would not build or support any third runway at Heathrow under any circumstances. I invite the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs. Villiers) to make a similar pledge when she speaks in due course.

Voters in London will have to look at three parties in the local elections, the mayoral election and the general election in respect of policy on Heathrow. We know that the Government have been captured by BAA in terms of policy, and we will find out where the Conservatives stand with their chaotic policy on Heathrow. We are the only party in this House that will oppose the third runway at Heathrow under any circumstances.

. . Susan Kramer (Richmond Park, Liberal Democrat): I thank the right hon. Lady for her generosity in giving way. Just on that issue of the shadow cost of carbon, to which I assume she is referring, will she confirm that it is based on an assumption, first, that the Government have the right target for emissions and, secondly, that they will hit that target? The calculation is, therefore, that there will be only modest carbon costs because the risk of climate change will have been mitigated by those other measures. In other words, the pricing used in this calculation depends on a perfect world scenario rather than being within the range of pricing that most of us would consider prudent at a time when we are debating even what climate change targets should be. It is, in other words, inadequate.

Ruth Kelly (Secretary of State, Department for Transport): I may be out by a pound or two, but I think that the price that we are putting on carbon is about £25 per tonne of CO2, increasing by 2 per cent. in real terms year on year. As Nicholas Stern pointed out, there is a range of carbon prices that could be used, but when he was asked on the "Today" programme whether we could view our current policy on aviation expansion and road building as compatible with meeting our CO2 targets, he said, "I believe we can". Not only that, the figures that we have put forward are robust to different scenarios for the shadow price of carbon. We have estimated the net economic benefit to be about £4.8 billion, and it would clearly be possible to increase the shadow price of carbon significantly without cancelling out that benefit.

Ultimately, however, the international nature of the aviation industry means that action to tackle environmental impacts is most effective if it is delivered on an international basis. We have been pressing for greater worldwide progress on the environment in the UN's International Civil Aviation Organisation, but perhaps most important is the fact that we have been leading negotiations in Europe to include aviation in the European Union's emissions trading scheme. If that happens from 2012, as is currently proposed, any extra carbon emissions from an expanded Heathrow will be balanced by a reduction in emissions from other, more cost-effective parts of the economy. In effect, net carbon emissions would be stabilised at 2004 to 2006 levels, which would constitute a significant improvement on the position today.

. .

Susan Kramer (Richmond Park, Liberal Democrat): I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way. She will be aware from her conversations with aircraft manufacturers that all the quick and easy gains on both noise and fuel efficiency have been captured, and that there are no immediate major technological breakthroughs on the horizon. In terms of noise, is that not confirmed by her choice of a benchmark year when Concorde was flying? Because of the averaging techniques she used, we will be talking about keeping noise not at today's levels, but at levels as they used to be if we were able to take Concorde's allocation of noise, as it were, and average out-even if we agreed on how to measure noise.

Ruth Kelly (Secretary of State, Department for Transport): Unfortunately, I disagree entirely. That was the latest available year, and the Concorde issue is not significantly relevant to the calculations. The hon. Lady is right that there is no step change in technology-as there may be in car technology-which could within the next two, three, five or 10 years transform the way aircraft fly, but year by year there are significant improvements in the efficiency of the fleet. Even more important than that, the fact is that we will have a cap at European level on the amount of carbon that can be released, and trading will take place beneath that cap. That will be at the level of 2004 to 2006, which is below where we are today.

6:17 pm

Susan Kramer (Richmond Park, Liberal Democrat): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am very conscious of the time available and the number of people who want to speak, so I shall take as read my very strong views on a lot of issues-climate change, the negative impact of the third runway, the damage to Sipson, the impact on schools, learning, air quality and traffic congestion, and the huge potential loss for the air-rail hub at Heathrow.

I shall also say little about the quality of the consultation, but it so offended my constituents that Richmond council put out its own survey that had almost 10,000 responses, of which 90 per cent. opposed expansion. That gives an idea of the strength of feeling locally. Furthermore, we did our own little survey, to which there have been 850 responses. Having tabulated the first 450 of them, we know that 99 per cent. of those oppose expansion at the airport.

Noise is the issue mentioned over and over-people who cannot have weddings outside or sit in their gardens whenever aircraft are overhead. There was a wonderful little letter from a certain young William, who cannot hear "Thomas the Tank Engine". The impact on kids and families is very significant. The very thought that we would end up with mixed mode makes life unbearable; a phenomenal number of people in my area have said that they would simply have to move.

I want to focus on what seems to be the heart of the Government's argument: their economic case, which I find very specious. Listening to those arguments is like listening to the people who argued once upon a time that the way to develop London's economy was to bring motorways criss-crossing through the city to meet the demand for cars. It is exactly the same now with air travel. Of course Heathrow is a hub airport but, as I said earlier, the point about hub airports is that constantly expanding them has diminishing returns. It is attractive to the aviation industry to bring more transfer passengers into Heathrow-BA and BAA love that, because it serves their narrow business interests extremely well.

The former chief executive of BAA, Stephen Nelson, said that he thought that 35 per cent. of the expanded number of passengers would be transfer traffic. All continental airports compete for transfer traffic, not destination traffic. Having additional flights to more destinations when all the key destinations are already being served to virtual saturation point brings very little economic benefit. The Government have not absorbed that, and Heathrow is the obvious example. As the Secretary of State said, the number of destinations served at Heathrow has dropped by almost a fifth over the past few years. Passenger numbers have stayed steady and London has gone through its strongest period of economic growth, with more companies coming to London and this area than ever before. There is a complete disconnect in the thinking.

The very complex booklet on UK air passenger demand that has been part of the consultation is conceptually utterly naive, looking merely at a linear relationship between the number of passengers and gross domestic product. It is mathematically complex but has very little understanding of actual behaviour and economic drivers and of the fact that here in London business is changing. Business people do not want to be put on a flight every 10 minutes by their employers-they used to accept that, but no longer. Businesses are trying to reduce their carbon footprint. New technologies are coming through for video conferencing and other ways of communication. High-speed rail is increasingly a preferred option. We are in a period of dynamism and change, and the Government are clinging to an old technology and an old strategy just when they need not do so. The logic of what they say is that we must constantly grow and grow. If there are six new runways in Beijing, then my goodness, we must have more runways here in London. That is utterly unsustainable. If we say that at some point we must draw a line in the sand, let us draw it now before we do additional damage to London's economy and quality of life.

What brings people to this city is in large part the quality of life that is on offer. Expansion means that parts of London and the south-east that have never been impacted on by noise will be greatly impacted by it, including the City and Canary Wharf and, may I say, Kensington and Chelsea. The minute the spouse of a major executive of an American bank says, "I'm damned if I'm going to go and live in that city, because it's bloody unbearable", that is the point at which the economic change begins to be delivered in London and we start to lose out. Anyone who thinks that the number of destinations is key should take a look at Frankfurt. It has the most destinations of any of the cities in Europe, but it is not attracting businesses away from the UK or anywhere else because people do not want to live there. That is the important underlying issue.

In my last seconds, I say to the Conservatives that this is the day when they must stand up for stopping this expansion now and for ever. Never mind the typo-this is the day to show true colours, stand together and bring an end to this absolutely idiotic plan to expand capacity at Heathrow.

. . 6:41 pm

Steve Webb (Northavon, Liberal Democrat): I shall start by picking up where the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) left off, as the link between aviation and climate change provides the context for this debate. The right hon. Gentleman will know that only last November the Department for Transport projected emissions growth from aviation. It said that, even taking account of the radiative forcing effects, 9 per cent. of our current emissions come from aviation; by 2020 it will rise to 15 per cent.; and by 2050, 29 per cent. That means huge potential growth in the emissions from aviation, and here we are looking at expanding a major airport. The two simply do not sit together, and if we are serious about tackling climate change, we have to say no to the third runway at Heathrow.

This has been a debate of contrasts. We have had some very clear contributions, and it is noticeable that all four Back-Bench contributions from Labour Members were opposed to the Government's position. The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Alan Keen) provided a knowledgeable and passionate defence of his constituents and their interests; the hon. Member for Battersea (Martin Linton), who is no longer in his place, raised the issue of those just below the top decibel threshold and the many more who will be affected by the noise impact of Heathrow; the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) talked about the growth in promises, but the dodgy consultations that we have already seen on nuclear power and we are seeing now with Heathrow; and the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton highlighted, as have others, the role of BAA in all this. No one doubts that it has to supply information; no one doubts that it is an interested party, but it has to be open and transparent.

I echo the tributes paid to the hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) for her perseverance, which should not have been necessary. The information should have been in the public domain. If the Government have nothing to hide, why will they not- [Interruption.] The Secretary of State says "It is" from a sedentary position, but I strongly suspect that there is a long list of information that the hon. Member for Putney has requested that has not been put in the public domain-environmental information, for example, which needs to be in the public domain now.

Before moving on, I should also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer), who has been absolutely unambiguous about her position on the third runway and has been a doughty campaigner. The contrast between her position and that of the official Opposition could not be more acute. The House has the right to know the position of each of the major parties. The Secretary of State is clearly pro a third runway, as she said earlier that there is "a clear need" for "extra runway capacity" at Heathrow. She did not say that it was subject to anything. The record will show that she said that- [Interruption.] The Minister may wish to qualify it, but that is what the Secretary of State said.

In contrast, the shadow Transport Secretary said that there were four tests, but the implication of that for another runway is that if the tests are passed, the runway goes ahead. When I intervened to ask her whether the runway would go ahead if the tests were passed, she said something to the effect that the tests were not being passed and it was all very difficult. But it is not very difficult. Either the runway should or should not go ahead or it is conditional on passing the tests. If the Conservatives are saying that it should go ahead subject to the passing of those tests, they should make that clear to the voters of London. The Conservative leader sent an e-mail to a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park on that very issue. One gets a slight sense that the Conservatives-though it pains me to use the expression-say one thing to one set of people and something else to another set of people- [Interruption.]

Several hon. Members: rose - Steve Webb (Northavon, Liberal Democrat): The leader of the Conservative party said in an e-mail: "The economic case for expanding Heathrow is now stronger than for expanding any other airport in the South East." That is one of the official Conservative positions.

Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet, Conservative): Does that mean that the hon. Gentleman supports the building of another runway at Stansted?

Steve Webb (Northavon, Liberal Democrat): No, we do not support that.

Where do we go from here? I shadow the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who said on 13 March that "aviation emissions in Europe will be capped at the 2004 to 2006 level".-[ Official Report, 13 March 2008; Vol. 473, c. 406.]. To be fair to the Ministers who are here tonight, that is not what they are saying. They are saying that the aviation industry will just buy carbon emissions above the cap.

The Government are trying to give the impression that extra runway capacity at Heathrow does not matter because the emissions are capped, but of course they are not capped. All that will happen is that the aviation industry will buy carbon credits from other sectors of the economy. If Heathrow is allowed to expand and aviation expansion goes ahead, other sectors of the economy will not just have to meet the carbon reduction targets that we think they should meet anyway but will have to go even further, which means that the British industry will have to go even further and householders will have to go even further. Why should constant attempts be made to satiate what my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) rightly described as the insatiable appetite of the aviation industry?

John Randall (Uxbridge, Conservative): Could the hon. Gentleman explain again why his party thinks it is such a great idea to end runway alternation?

Steve Webb (Northavon, Liberal Democrat): For the avoidance of doubt, the Liberal Democrats oppose the ending of runway alternation. [Interruption.] That is absolutely clear. Anyone who reads the motion as a whole can be in no doubt about that.

In the few minutes remaining to me, let me pose this question: what is the alternative strategy? At the beginning of her speech, the Secretary of State criticised us for suggesting that not everyone should be able to go on every holiday they want, and that not every business should be able to take every business flight. She criticised us for suggesting that there should be constraint. She also said, however, that she did not favour predict and provide, and that the growth would be less than the predicted demand.

There is no difference between our position and the Government's-we both accept that the growth of airport traffic will be rationed-but, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes, the Liberal Democrats have stated explicitly that that should involve substituting high-speed rail for air travel, which is far more relevant, and also demand management, which means raising the cost of flying through carbon taxation and rationing. If the Government are serious about meeting their carbon emission targets, they must accept the need for measures of that kind.

The Climate Change Bill, to which reference has been made, does not even mention aviation. It is not included in the targets. Only carbon dioxide emissions are capped by the trading scheme; other aviation emissions are not capped in the same way. It is not the case that there is no problem with emissions as a result of airport expansion. It is clear that there is a problem, even given the trading scheme. The next phase, which applies to aviation, will not be introduced until three or four years from now, and in the meantime the emissions will continue to increase. That is the key point.

As we have heard from Members representing constituencies in the area, this is predominantly a local issue, but it is also a national and a global issue. Important issues have been raised by Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park, but we are in danger of losing sight of the bigger picture: the soaring contribution of aviation emissions to climate change.

One of the problems with tackling climate change is that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs does not control transport policy, so Heathrow gets expanded. It does not control energy policy, so we get new coal-fired power stations. It does not control the rules on new houses, so no effective action is taken on emissions from housing. Regrettably, we have a weak Department responsible for the environment and a powerful Transport Department, with powerful friends alongside it, shaping the consultation. That is why, on an environmental basis and on a transport basis, this is a fundamentally flawed prospectus.

To conclude, there have been two clear positions in this debate: that of the Liberal Democrats, who oppose the third runway at Heathrow, and that of the Government, who have clearly made up their mind already. What we have had from the Conservatives is fudge and bluster, and the electorate will find them out.

. . Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:- The House divided: Ayes 66, Noes 265.