Heathrow (Third Runway)

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), as I did in the debate that we had on 11 November. The fact that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs. Villiers), who speaks for the Opposition on these matters, did not make one of her finest speeches today does not make the Government's case any stronger for forcing through a third runway at Heathrow airport. My starting point is the 2003 aviation White Paper, ““The Future of Air Transport””, which contains commitments that I and every other Labour MP were elected on. It is worth reminding the House what it said about air quality, noise and surface access—three of the key tests for all of us who represent constituencies under the Heathrow flight path. It was fairly clear:"““To tackle local impacts around airports, the White Paper prescribes a range of measures to be applied nationally and locally. These include new legislation and economic instruments as well as improved technology and stringent planning conditions attached to airport development. The Government's under-pinning objectives are to limit””—" to limit—"““and, where possible, reduce noise impacts over time””." I welcome the announcement on mixed mode—that was not limiting noise impacts; it was not making them worse immediately, which is an entirely different thing. The White Paper continues with the phrase,"““to ensure air quality and other environmental standards are met, and to minimise other local environmental impacts.””" On surface access—these issues are linked—the White Paper was again clear. Paragraph 4.55, on access to and from airports, states:"““Ensuring easy and reliable access for passengers, which minimises environmental, congestion and other local impacts, is a key factor in considering any proposal for new airport capacity. All such proposals must be accompanied by clear proposals on surface access which meet these criteria.""Increasing the proportion of passengers who get to airports by public transport can help reduce road congestion and air pollution. We expect airport operators to share this objective, and to demonstrate how they will achieve it in putting forward their proposals for developing new capacity””." We have heard from the contributions today that BAA's management do not accept that responsibility—in fact, they butted it back. It is ““not their problem””. BAA's problem is to provide landing and take-off slots. Its problem is to run an airport; it is not interested in the chaos that it causes around the airport. Its track record and believability, for any of us who represent constituencies around Heathrow airport, is shredded. It lied. It lied to the people of this country, to this House, to the Government. It said whatever it had to say to get terminal 5, and now it has the bare face to admit that it was deceitful all the way through. And we are supposed to believe the assurances that it is going to give us.