Morning:
9°c
MPs queue up to attack Heathrow third runway
Joe Murphy, Political Editor12.11.08
THE Government's push to expand Heathrow was weakened after Labour backbenchers hijacked a Commons debate and staged a protest.
A string of MPs queued up to attack proposals for a third runway as bad for the environment and a potential blight on the lives of millions of Londoners.
Their defiance, coming after the disclosure that senior ministers are divided on the issue, left Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon facing a battle with his own side if, as expected, he gives a go-ahead later this year.
Opening last night's debate, Mr Hoon said jobs would be destroyed unless airport capacity was increased. He said strict air pollution limits would be met.
But Labour former aviation minister Chris Mullin said the minister appeared to be aiming for "unlimited" expansion of the air industry.
"Sooner or later, politicians are going to have to say 'no' to them," he said. "Should we not be looking at ways of managing demand rather than predicting it and providing for it?"
Former Minister for London Nick Raynsford asked: "What would stop a future Transport Secretary coming back in a few years and saying we want a fourth runway or a Terminal 6, 7 or 8?"
Labour former Environment Minister Michael Meacher warned: "Tripling Britain's airport capacity is irreconcilable with meeting our mandatory climate change targets."
Reading West MP Martin Salter said the Government did not have a "snowball's chance in hell" of meeting its pledges on air quality and environmental standards if the runway went ahead.
Another former minister, Fiona Mactaggart, the MP for Slough, said: "We cannot contemplate a third runway when we are operating the M4 at 105 per cent of capacity per day," she said.
John McDonnell, MP for Hayes and Harlington, said anger over the plan was "building into a form of direct action this Government and maybe this country has never seen before".
More than 140 MPs - including 50 Labour MPs - signed a Commons motion calling for a rethink.
A third runway would add up to 220,000 flights by 2030 and earn up to £9 billion. Critics say swathes of London face more noise and pollution, and travellers should be moved onto high speed rail lines.
Mr Hoon argued that without sufficient capacity at Heathrow, flights would move to Schiphol, Paris and Frankfurt. "There will be no reduction in carbon emissions," he said. "They will simply be displaced and British jobs will be lost." He told MPs their constituents wanted cheap travel.
Shadow transport secretary Theresa Villiers said she had never seen a minister "more isolated" in the Commons.
● A double-digit rise in landing fees will be needed to meet the cost - up to £13.7 billion - of the third runway, according to Mark McVicar, an analyst with Dresden Kleinwort.
Reader views (11)
If you support expansion at Heathrow then you are supporting dangerous levels of pollution for many Londoners, including many children who have no choice but to stay where they are and breath in the fumes.
They should have moved the airport out of town in the 60s like Paris and New York, now when they finally do realise the hub's got to move it's going to be really difficult. I personally reckon it'll end up at Stansted which is why BAA are trying to hang on to it.
- Rich, London
Heathrow with or without a new runway is an outdated airport,the noise pollution alone over densly populated London is already way to much.When forward thinking people like Boris Johnson suggest alternatives they are,called "radical".London needs a new airport,which takes planes away from a flightpath over central London.Heathrow has become a sprawling mess and to add to it is just adding to the problem.In my opinion demolishing Heathrow after a new airport is built is the only option.
- Jim Ex Pat,N1, thailand
"There will be no reduction in carbon emissions," he said. "They will simply be displaced and British jobs will be lost."
Well the EU should do something useful for a change and BAN airport expansion across the whole of Europe.
- Les, Essex
Support Heathrow and support jobs in London.
- Atma Singh, London
Nick: "What's the point of having more cash if the city's not fit to live in. I would anyway consider leaving London if this runway goes ahead."
The reality is that some of the places in London that are judged the most desirable and have the highest house prices are those which are affected by aircraft noise, e.g. Richmond, Twickenham, Sheen.
It doesn't affect me now (I lived in Twickenham for 55 years) but IMO the right answer to demands for more runway capacity was always to build a second runway at Gatwick, an option vetoed by the Tories. The flight paths affect a lot fewer people and the airport has excellent road and rail links.
- Tonyb, Melbourne, Australia
In 20 or 30 years, what will all these "predicted" jets be running on? Batteries? Clockwork?
Or maybe huge elastic bands...
How have the airplane bosses managed to get Hoon into their pockets?
- Alex Mckenna, Manchester
Environment and quality of life should come above possible economic advantages (which are doubtful anyway).
What's the point of having more cash if the city's not fit to live in. I would anyway consider leaving London if this runway goes ahead.
- Nick, London
We MUST Stop this Runway - its eco-terrorism and will further erode quality of life in London. We Londoners unite and get active and show our disapproval now.
- Caz, London
The only reason Runway 3 will get the go-ahead is because Labour needs to keep labourers and engineers off of the dole-queue. It has nothing to do with economics or the environment.
- Nobby Clark, Perth, Scotland
How is it that a Government uses the jobs card to justify its claim for airport expansion at Heathrow when airport operator BAA have been cutting jobs aggressively since 2007 with the sole aim of increasing profits
- John Bloomfield, Twickenham
typical labour, give a job like this to geoff goon b ecause he made such a good defence minister. why do they keep going with incompetent idiots like him?
- Peter Lewin, ex pat in france
