---

Alan Keen (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op): Before offering any criticism, I want to make a point that I have made before in this place. There is a massive difference this time, in that—thank goodness—we have a consultation process. The terminal 5 protestors—on that occasion, I was not one of them—had to defend themselves and to pay legal fees after the planning application was made for the terminal. But at least we have a consultation process this time, and despite the fact that neither my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) nor I are happy about the current situation, it is at least good to discover that the Minister is listening. That is a massive improvement on what used to happen.
 
8 Jun 2004 : Column 197
 

I have lived within six miles of Heathrow for more than 40 years, and for 13 years I worked only half a mile from the touchdown point of the southern runway, directly underneath the flight path; so I understand what it is like to suffer such noise in a stressful situation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington has explained what will happen if there is a third runway. We have all seen the television pictures of planes that look as though they are touching the chimney pots of houses, and the constituents in question are mine: they live in Waye avenue and Berkeley avenue in Cranford. To live under that is absolutely appalling. Even people who live two or three miles away from the touchdown point cannot go into their gardens in the summer for half the day—so no barbecues—because the situation is absolutely impossible. We cannot continue to ignore this problem.

I am opposed to the third runway, but I should point out that this is the first time that I have opposed expansion of Heathrow. I was pleased to note that one Opposition Member who has always supported expansion is also against the third runway.

I know at least one other Member who has changed his mind on the third runway. I regard myself as a friend of air transport and I was not happy when the Secretary of State launched the White Paper and sarcastically asked whether my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington understood the economic benefits of Heathrow airport. We have lived among people there for such a long time that we certainly do. We were not pleased to hear that question. It raises people's tempers when these issues are dealt with in that way.

We have always been told that it is critical for Heathrow to compete with the Charles de Gaulle, Schiphol and Frankfurt airports, for example. Over the past 18 months, however, we have been told that Heathrow should not be a major hub, but a second-level one. I am not satisfied that that position is based on logic. It may be a form of words designed to persuade people that we do not need a brand new airport where planes can land and take off over water. It is a form of words intended to persuade us that the policy has not changed. We are now faced with the Government apparently backing short-termism—not looking far enough ahead—which we always used to criticise British industry for. I was able to secure agreement from someone in the airline industry that I was right on that issue, but no one is admitting it at the moment.

I am a friend of British Airways, which I believe has done its best for local people, but it is always governed completely by shareholders. If the Department for Transport listens to BA, it needs to know that BA will never say that it needs to look well ahead and provide a new airport with less environmental damage to residents. BA is continually criticised for having a virtual monopoly in the south-east. If we had a new airport in the south-east, I am sure that BA would not be the operator because there would be too much opposition. We need to understand that BA is bound by its duty to shareholders and we need to take that into account as we consider the issues.

In my remaining three minutes, I want to focus on local people. I have already mentioned Cranford. The Cranford agreement has existed for many years; it goes
 
8 Jun 2004 : Column 198
 
back to the 1950s. There is no legal reason for it to remain. If there were no people living underneath the flight paths, mixed-mode operation would be quite acceptable.

Before going any further, I want to make it clear that colleagues on both sides of the House often express two fallacies. One is that the footprint has got smaller, so that must mean progress. However, the planes would have to take off and land vertically for Cranford to be outside the footprint. For the people that I am talking about, it makes no difference, however the aeroplanes are modernised. The second fallacy is that the planes are quieter nowadays when they take off than when they are landing. That fallacy is often perpetuated by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) and colleagues in the Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise. I have praised HACAN many times and do so again. The reason that take-off seems to be quieter is that by the time the planes are over Richmond Park, Sheen and Putney, most of them have already turned away, so people do not even hear them.

Under the Cranford agreement, aeroplanes taking off to the east do not use the northern runway, so people living in Cranford do not hear such planes taking off over their houses.

That is why the television always shows aeroplanes coming in to land, rather than taking off. We cannot afford to allow the Cranford agreement to be destroyed by a mixed-mode solution that would mean that the people there had to suffer from even more noise. That would not be acceptable, as they already suffer enough.

I was pleased to hear that the poor quality of the air had been proved, but one does not need to be a scientist to know that the air is bad. One has only to stand with my Cranford constituents in their gardens, or even inside their houses, when a plane is taking off to realise that the conditions are not acceptable. No hon. Member would be prepared to live like that.

We must look at all aspects of the problem. My constituents have been happy to put up with what has gone on at Heathrow because of the economic advantages that the airport has brought, but things have gone far enough.

3.40 pm

Mr. Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con): I welcome this debate, but I want to preface my remarks by expressing my disappointment that the Government have allocated only half a day to this very important matter. Does the Minister really believe that this short debate is sufficient to consider 30 years of air travel? I doubt that he does. People will conclude that the Government are not very interested in dissenting views or fresh ideas.

Given the limited time available, I shall confine my remarks to the impact of the plans in the White Paper on Stansted airport. The decision to allow an additional runway there is both perverse and unworkable. It is perverse, not just because it runs counter to the original views of the inspector and the local community, but because it goes against the views of many people in business and in the aviation industry. The White Paper ignores the views of more than 60 local bodies, from parish councils to county councils, and the petition signed by 35,000 people that I presented to the House
 
8 Jun 2004 : Column 199
 
some months ago. It also overlooks the opinion expressed by the 89 per cent. of people who voted against the runway in the referendum organised a little while ago by Uttlesford district council.

Yet the opposition to the new runway goes far wider even than that. The National Trust, the Council to Protect Rural England, the Woodland Trust and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds all oppose it, as do many leading voices in the world of business. In a detailed survey by the London chamber of commerce and industry, 80 per cent. of the businesses that responded made it clear that they preferred Heathrow to Stansted.

Even in the aviation industry, it is clear that many airlines do not want to use Stansted. British Airways has stated:

"A runway at Stansted would not get built. Nobody wants it. Nobody would pay for it. The tarmac wouldn't even get laid."

If businesses, many airlines and the vast majority of people in my community do not want the runway, why do the Government want to press ahead with it? The answer lies in the Government's intimate relationship with BAA.

When BAA was first privatised, that close relationship was perhaps understandable, but it now clouds Whitehall's judgment. The result could be a runway to which no one wants to go, and for which no one is prepared to pay.

My concern about the new runway is that it will prove unworkable, both logistically and financially. As the House knows, our rail service struggles already to meet the demands of the 12,000 or so daily journeys from the airport. The new runway would generate over 20,000 daily rail journeys, but the Government have no plans or proposals to increase capacity, and no funds have been allocated for that purpose.

The Government plan that a new runway will be in place in eight years, but many people may not be able to get there. That is a bizarre scenario. When he replies to the debate, will the Minister say how passengers from central London will be able to get to the new runway, given that the 10-year plan for rail contains no proposals to make that possible?

I said that the decision was unworkable logistically, but it is also unworkable in financial terms. BAA plc estimates that the project—runway and infrastructure—will cost some £400 million. As always, that is an initial estimate, and the figure will undoubtedly rise considerably. Who will pay? The White Paper appears to give a clear commitment on that, when it states:

"The Government will not promote or pay for the development of Stansted. New airport capacity should be paid for by airport users."

That would appear to mean that Ryanair and easyJet, which represent 93 per cent. of Stansted's business, would have to stump up the vast majority of the costs through higher landing charges. But both companies have made it clear that they are not prepared—or, indeed, even able—to support a rise in landing charges.

A commercial reality underpins that viewpoint. The market for low-cost air travel is very cost-sensitive, and the profit margins are tight. Therefore, unlike the mobile phone sector, for example, the money is not there to invest in long-term infrastructure projects. That is why
 
8 Jun 2004 : Column 200
 
the Government are now planning to seek cross-subsidies from Heathrow and Gatwick to help pay for a new runway at Stansted. However, it is clear that such subsidies may prove commercially and legally unenforceable. One leading airline has said of cross-subsidies:

"Virgin Atlantic is totally opposed to cross-subsidisation. Airlines operating from Heathrow and Gatwick should not be expected to fund an airport for which they did not ask and will not use, or equivalently, to subsidise their competitors."

In my opinion, that is entirely right.

Ministers should be under no illusion. Attempts to cross-subsidise will face challenges both in the courts and from the competition authorities. Perhaps the Minister can tell the House what will happen if an agreement cannot be reached, or the policy is successfully challenged in the courts. After all, the development programme will probably be under way. Planning permissions may have been granted and contracts let. Who will pick up the tab then?

The Government say that they will not promote or pay for the development of Stansted. What exactly does that mean? Does it include, for example, the road and rail infrastructure outside the airport area? Does "promote" mean that the Government would not be willing to grant planning permission to enable BAA plc to enjoy commercial development rights on its site? Does the policy of non-promotion extend to all arms of Government, including the eastern regional office and the East of England Development Agency?

Those are crucial questions that will determine the viability of the proposals at the heart of the White Paper, but it fails to answer them. I hope that in his reply the Minister will do so. The proposal is neither commercially nor logistically viable. The original inspection said that a second runway at Stansted would be "an environmental disaster". That is true. The danger is that we will end up with a runway that nobody wants, few can get to and even fewer can afford. That is the reality of this misguided decision, and that is why I genuinely urge the Minister to think again, even at this late stage.

3.48 pm

---