No. I have been very generous in giving way, and I want to make some progress now.
Whereas the environmental case against the third runway is compelling, the economic case, as I have said, is unconvincing. It is astounding that the Oxford Economic Forecasting study on which the current economic case is based fails to make any attempt to deduct the costs of increased air pollution, aircraft noise and a massive increase in congestion on some of the United Kingdom's most important roads. Neither is any attempt made to assess the carbon cost of inbound international flights. The CE Delft study for HACAN ClearSkies disputes the £120 value that OEF claims every passenger arriving in the United Kingdom contributes to the economy. It also concludes that OEF overestimates the extent of suppressed business demand for air travel at Heathrow. Indeed, the Government's whole analysis completely ignores the huge efforts being made to reduce the need for business travel. According to a recent survey conducted for the World Wildlife Fund, 89 per cent. of the FTSE 350 companies interviewed expected to cut flights over the next 10 years.
Heathrow (Third Runway)
Proceeding contribution from
Theresa Villiers
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 28 January 2009.
It occurred during Opposition day on Heathrow (Third Runway).
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
487 c307 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-16 20:54:57 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_524075
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_524075
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_524075