Government reject Lib Dem call for halt to Heathrow expansion

2 April 2008

Norman Baker speaks for the Liberal Democrats during their opposition day debate on Heathrow

The Liberal Democrats used their opposition debate day to call on the Government to withdraw permanently plans for a third runway at Heathrow and rule out any further increase in airport capacity in the South East.

Norman Baker, Liberal Democrat Shadow Transport Secretary, described the Government as living in “a sort of bubble, in which climate change does not exist”, and criticised the effects that increased aviation will have on the quarter of a million residents living near Heathrow.

Labour opposed the motion, voting against it, whilst the Conservatives refused to support it.

The full text of the Liberal Democrat motion was:

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 the ending of 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.

Moving the motion, Norman Baker said:

“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.”

On the damaging effects of aviation, Mr Baker said:

“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?”

On more planes in the London area, Mr Baker said:

“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.”

“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”.”

Richmond Park MP Susan Kramer, whose constituents live under the Heathrow flight path, also spoke in the debate.

On the weak economic case for more plane journeys, Ms Kramer said:

“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.”

Ms Kramer explained,

“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.”

Liberal Democrat Shadow Environment Secretary Steve Webb summed up at the end of the debate for the party.

On the Conservatives’ poor transport policy, Mr Webb said:

“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 - The Minister may wish to qualify it, but that is what the Secretary of State said.

“In contrast, the shadow [Conservative] 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.”

On the weakness of Defra, Mr Webb said:

“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.”

The Liberal Democrats motion was defeated, for 66 for and 265 against
Click here to read Norman Baker’s speech in full
Click here to read Susan Kramer’s speech in full
Click here to read Steve Webb’s speech in full
Click here to read  the Liberal Democrat policy paper, Towards Carbon Free Transport

Applicability: this item refers to England. Due to devolution, detailed policy may be different in other areas of the UK.