---

Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con): I am slightly disappointed that the hon. Lady's Committee was unable to address the issue of business aviation, which has a contribution to make in relieving prime slot times at our major hub airports. Here, I am making a small plea of behalf of Farnborough aerodrome. It is Government policy, as the Minister has reiterated, that Farnborough should be the business airport serving the

11 Mar 2004 : Column 1681

south-east. There has been huge investment in Farnborough, and such business airports have a serious contribution to make in relieving congestion at the major hubs.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I do not in any way disagree with the view that business aviation will not only be a burgeoning field, but will provide very real support to some industries at certain times. But the hon. Gentleman is surely not seriously suggesting that the question of access to major airports for large planes that seat perhaps 150 to 200 people is quite the same as that of offering opportunities for smaller aviation elsewhere in the region. I agree that that issue is vital, but it is not comparable with access to major congested airports.

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Lady seems to have completely misunderstood my point. Farnborough has the capacity for up to 28,000 business aircraft movements per annum, and taking such movements away from Heathrow and Gatwick, for example, would relieve some of the congestion on the very regional access routes that the hon. Lady is keen to defend.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am glad that I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, because that gave him a further opportunity to advertise the facilities available at Farnborough. What happens in general aviation at large airports must affect the amount of movement and the opportunities for using other aircraft.

I hope that the Government will come out fighting on a number of fronts. We are up against a fairly tight time scale. If we do not decide which airports in the south-east are to be expanded, it will not simply be a question of airports becoming full, because they are already filled to their upper limits. We cannot deal with the expansion in passenger numbers simply by pretending that they are not there. We shall find that many people are inconvenienced, and start trying to avoid the London airports and taking their business and money elsewhere. We must also resolve to protect the interests of the regions, and ensure that people have the right to fly into the south-east. Those decisions must be made, and made public, as soon as possible.

We must tell the European Commission that we are not clear about its reasons for taking this line in its research, or about the weight that the document carries. If after five years there has been no major development of the south-east airports and regional airlines have been squeezed out of their areas, with a significant impact on the number of people who can fly in and out of the south-east, we shall be left with the worst of all worlds. I do not doubt that a great deal of profit can be made from the buying and selling of slots, although it is extraordinary that we do not even admit that they have a monetary value. It is clear to the airlines concerned that they do.

The Government have started well. They have set the parameters, and have begun to deal with difficult questions from which people have run away for more than 25 years. Unfortunately, we cannot allow the situation to continue. We certainly cannot allow a lack of decision-making to decide where we are to go in aviation. Aviation is a number one industry, capable of

11 Mar 2004 : Column 1682

producing jobs, money and economic demand. We need to be in the lead; we need to be number one among European countries in deciding how best to serve the interests of our constituents. I think we can do it, but let us understand that we do not have a long time in which to make our decisions.

1.52 pm

Mr. Paul Marsden (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (LD): On 11 February, I told the Minister in Westminster Hall:

"I also hope that he will deal with the demand for a much wider debate to be held on the Floor of the House as soon as possible." —[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 11 February 2004; Vol. 417, c. 447WH.]

I realise that today's debate is probably being held thanks to the Select Committee on Transport rather than the Minister, but I welcome it none the less.

Following the formidable performance of our Chairman, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), let me say that I understand how important it is to jobs, the economy and tourism that the air industry should cater for future demand. In the short time available to me, however, I shall concentrate on the environment and on sustainable development of the industry, which are issues all too often overlooked. Liberal Democrats believe that airport expansion should be a last resort, and we mean a last resort. There may well be demand for another runway by 2017, although some environmental groups would argue that that should not happen before 2030, but there are many options for us to try before then in an attempt to limit and manage demand.

The problem is that the Government are simply following the last Tory Government's predict and provide policy. They have tried to deny that in Westminster Hall debates, but the White Paper makes it clear that it is precisely what they are doing. They are estimating the probable number of passengers and the volume of goods to be shifted, and trying to build more and more capacity. We must take a stand. If the Government are right in their prediction that by 2030 there will be 500 million passengers and prices will be cut by up to a third, more runways will spring up over the south-east. That would be a disaster for the environment.

What have the Government's experts said? Sir Tom Blundell, chairman of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, said on 16 December:

"The White Paper fails to take account of the serious impacts that the projected increase in air travel will have on the environment. Earlier this year the government published an Energy White Paper setting out its strategy for tackling global climate change, and set challenging but necessary targets for greenhouse gas emissions."

Mrs. Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op): The tenor of the hon. Gentleman's remarks suggests a restriction, or indeed a reduction, in air travel. Does he deny the importance of increasing air travel opportunities for the regions, particularly the Liverpool area of the north-west?

Mr. Marsden: Absolutely not. I was going to point out that expanding regional capacity was one possible

11 Mar 2004 : Column 1683

solution. Too much is funnelled through the south-east at present. As one born and bred not far from Liverpool, I agree with what the hon. Lady said about that part of the country.

Sir Tom Blundell continued:

"Today's White Paper undermines those targets and continues to favour commerce over vital carbon dioxide reduction measures."

Baroness Young of Scone, chief executive of the Environment Agency, said:

"The Government has committed to a 60 per cent. reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050."

That seems a long way off, but if we do not make progress soon, we will not meet those vital targets when it comes to climate change. Lady Young went on:

"The Government's own forecasts suggest that by 2030 aircraft fuelled at UK airports could have a global warming impact equivalent to at least 30 per cent."—

one third—

"of current CO2 emissions from all UK domestic sources. This is a massive growth",

and it will pose a serious problem for the future.

Mr. Mark Francois (Rayleigh) (Con): Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the so-called irradiative forcing effect, whereby chemicals released into the atmosphere by aviation engines do much more harm to the ozone layer at altitude than they would if released at ground level? In fact, the problem is even more serious than many people realise.

Mr. Marsden: I entirely agree. The White Paper acknowledges the achievement of technological advances, for which the industry should be praised, but, as the hon. Gentleman says, serious effects in the stratosphere have yet to be fully recognised.

I should like to know the Government's response to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. It wants the Government to

"impose climate protection charges for aircraft taking off and landing within the EU; restrict airport development to encourage greater competition for available take off and landing slots . . . develop major airports into land-air hubs . . . support technological development to lessen the damage done by air travel".

Another important suggestion is that international aviation agreements should include an amendment to the Kyoto protocol in regard to the emissions trading scheme.

We must look to the future. The White Paper speaks, worryingly, of a wish to

"maximise the economic benefits whilst minimising/mitigating the environmental impacts".

That does not sound to me like protecting people and the environment first, which is what, in the knowledge of the consequences, I think we should aim to do.

There have been many criticisms from a number of environmental organisations over the last few months. I hope that the Government will begin to address them. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has said it recognises that aviation has

11 Mar 2004 : Column 1684

"contributed beneficially to the economic development and social life of the UK. However, this was not without considerable costs to the environment . . . Adverse impacts include: Climate change"—

through greenhouse gases—

"stratospheric ozone reduction leading to increased surface UV radiation; local pollution—both noise and decreased air quality"

and, obviously, the effect on the ground. That includes the impact on wildlife of expansion,

"airport construction and related infrastructure".

Friends of the Earth has been extremely critical of what the Government have been saying. According to Tony Juniper:

"The Government has sacrificed its environmental responsibilities to satisfy the demands of the aviation industry."

Today's announcement, which is based on the White Paper

"is yet another missed opportunity to put the air industry on a sustainable course."

---