Heathrow (Third Runway)

I am sorry, but I will not give way because of the time. The Secretary of State talked about concessions and having only 125,000 extra flights by 2020. The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change is in his place, and I tell him that that is not a concession. It was always the plan, as he will see if he looks at page 136 of the consultation document. It is no concession, and it is disingenuous of the Secretary of State for Transport to suggest that. Air quality is important, and we know that the Government will allow the UK to breach the EU air directive, which will become mandatory, and sets limits for 2010. The Government intend to ask for a derogation from it. Yet the Department's assessment of environmental risk on air quality was high. I have a copy of the Department's risk register, and I will use the Department's words, not mine, in describing the perception of the risks of going ahead with the project. Risk 1.2.1 states:"““Mitigation measures identified to achieve air quality targets are too costly or impractical to implement, or politically unacceptable””." The risk was assessed as high. The register also states:"““New modelling suggests that EU limits for NO2 in 2010 will be exceeded around Heathrow (without new development) necessitating capacity constraints””." The inherent risk was assessed as high. Let us consider the Department's assessment of the risks posed by the probable 40 million extra road journeys undertaken by people getting to the airport. Risk 1.3.1 states:"““Solutions to road congestion in and around Heathrow prove difficult to deliver, politically unacceptable or airlines refused to support, threatening further expansion””." Again, the risk was assessed as high. One of the mitigation measures proposed to tackle that was"““Constructive engagement with BAA and airlines””." I am sure that we all have faith that that will produce some positive results. Another mitigation proposal is ““a narrative”” in the ironically named ““condoc””, short for ““consultation document””, which"““will outline the possible measures for handling exceedences in 2015 rather than details modelling””." In other words, instead of tackling the problem, the Government want to talk it away. They do not want to provide the real facts about what will happen. Let us consider Government policy. Risk 1.3.6 states:"““Lack of clarity in DfT over approach to exceedences on the Strategic Road Network exposes inconsistency in policies and frustrates search for solutions””." The Government clearly admit that there is an inconsistency in their policies. Again, the inherent risk was assessed as high. Surely that has proved correct. Risk 1.3.7 deals with surface access and states:"““Surface access modelling is insufficient to demonstrate how increased passenger numbers will be accommodated””." The inherent risk was assessed as high. Yet, in the consultation document, the Government asked us to believe that everything would be fine. The final risk that the document assesses is whether terminal 5 will be a botch-up. That risk was assessed as low. That shows how much credence we can give to the Government's transparency and the reliability of their facts, and to the consultation process that has just taken place. Why is all that important? We know that not meeting air quality targets will be detrimental to public health. The Environment Agency said that the Government's plans could increase morbidity and mortality rates around the airport. I have tried to follow that up with the Secretary of State to ascertain how on earth a responsible Government can ignore their own Environment Agency's warnings about public health and go ahead with the project. I received a letter from him yesterday. Even he now admits that public health is at risk. The letter states:"““I note your reference to comments from the Environment Agency about possible increases in mortality and morbidity rates. However, the work done by AEA Energy & Environment, a respected organisation””—" as if the Environment Agency were not—"““that works alongside Defra on air quality matters, suggests that such fears have been greatly exaggerated.””" The risk register, from which I have quoted, suggests that that is not correct. The letter continues by saying that the statistics and scenarios that were"““published alongside the recent announcement””" show"““that there are only marginal physical health impacts of an expanded airport in 2020.””" If one's family is suffering from the physical impacts of an expanded Heathrow, that is not marginal. It is not marginal to the possibly thousands of people who will be affected. It is the first time that the Department has admitted that there are genuine public health impacts. The Government have spent more than three years modelling noise and air quality effects. They will not release the detailed data—that is why the Environment Agency is concerned about morbidity and mortality. The Government have not convinced residents and Ministers will not even come to the affected areas and meet people. Why is the Department so secretive? Clearly, hon. Members of all parties are worried about the impact of the plan, so why not allow access to data that would set people's minds at rest? Much of what I have said comes down to democracy. Ministers have said that we should not vote on such matters. We had a vote on Iraq, because that was viewed as exceptional. Many hon. Members feel that the third runway has such profound consequences for the day-to-day lives of their constituents that they view it as similarly important. We have had a consultation, to which residents have responded overwhelmingly by saying that they do not want the plan to go ahead. Despite all those points, Ministers still seek to override people's will. That is deeply worrying. I am sure that Ministers will not change their minds. They are wrong not to be concerned about public health and wrong to avoid being clear about the risks. They are so out of touch with people and their concerns that it will take an election to get some sanity into Government policy on Heathrow.