26/11/2015

:00:00. > :00:00.backbenchers have had the opportunity to question him in 103

:00:00. > :00:07.minutes so I hope colleagues feel that has been an adequate

:00:08. > :00:13.opposition. Mr Chris Grayling. If I can give the camera crew house the

:00:14. > :00:18.business for next week. Monday, topically, we will have a general

:00:19. > :00:30.debate on the UK role in the Middle East. Tuesday, we have the remaining

:00:31. > :00:33.stages of the immigration Bill followed by a motion to approve a

:00:34. > :00:39.statutory instrument relating to Northern Ireland 's followed by a

:00:40. > :00:43.debate on a motion relating to the high-speed rail London to West

:00:44. > :00:47.Midlands Bill. Wednesday, an opposition day on a subject to be

:00:48. > :00:54.announced. Thursday, the second reading of the charities protection

:00:55. > :01:02.Bill. Friday, a private members will day. The provisional business for

:01:03. > :01:09.the week afterwards... Monday, the remaining stages of the devolution

:01:10. > :01:12.Bill. Tuesday, time set aside for consideration of Lords amendments

:01:13. > :01:19.followed by a debate on a motion relating to European measures.

:01:20. > :01:22.Wednesday, a further opposition day. Thursday, a further day for business

:01:23. > :01:28.to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee. Friday, the

:01:29. > :01:33.House not sitting. I should say that the business in Westminster Hall for

:01:34. > :01:39.the 7th of December and 3rd of December... On the third, the

:01:40. > :01:50.fisheries policy, the seventh will look at the use of nicotine on

:01:51. > :01:58.crops. I'm warmly commend them on wet Syria, it is commendable. They

:01:59. > :02:02.are weighty matters so it is wrong for the government to bounce the

:02:03. > :02:06.House into a decision. Next week's business has been announced but I

:02:07. > :02:12.thought I heard the Prime Minister earlier saying he wanted a debate

:02:13. > :02:15.and vote as soon as possible, and before he was going to visit the

:02:16. > :02:19.Foreign Affairs Committee, and I can only presume that that means next

:02:20. > :02:25.week. I hope the Leader of the House will take on board that the House

:02:26. > :02:31.needs proper notice when we have debates of that kind and it is

:02:32. > :02:37.inappropriate to hide that. 103 people have spoken in this. There

:02:38. > :02:42.may be 103 people speaking in this debate so we need proper time said

:02:43. > :02:44.people are not just making two minutes beaches on a matter that

:02:45. > :02:50.really matters to our constituents. The final thing, I hope that the

:02:51. > :02:55.government will table a motion in plenty of time for members to

:02:56. > :03:03.consider any amendments they want to table so they do not have to be

:03:04. > :03:09.manuscript did on the day. Mr Speaker, just like you, I came to

:03:10. > :03:12.work this morning carrying a sword as I am delighted to announce that

:03:13. > :03:16.last night, thanks to the efforts of the honourable member for North

:03:17. > :03:24.Antrim and for Aberdeen North and for myself, the Commons rested the

:03:25. > :03:30.mighty Wilkinson Sword of their Lordships in a charity swimming

:03:31. > :03:35.championship for the Northern Ireland charity Hope for You.

:03:36. > :03:41.Talking of double-edged swords, I ask the leader whether he could tell

:03:42. > :03:46.us the dates of recesses next year. -- Youth. He got on this and said it

:03:47. > :03:49.is far more important for the government to get it business

:03:50. > :03:53.through rather than going on holiday, so I am going to ask a

:03:54. > :03:58.different question today. Instead of telling us when he we will not be

:03:59. > :04:06.sitting, can you tell us when we will be sitting? We will work out

:04:07. > :04:09.the recess from that! The Chancellor said something yesterday which was

:04:10. > :04:18.interesting. The improvements in the nation's finances are down to two

:04:19. > :04:25.things. Well, I agree. Smoke and mirrors. That is what it is. I first

:04:26. > :04:29.predicted that the government would do a U-turn on working tax credit in

:04:30. > :04:34.October and the leader, yet again, went pompous on us and moaned about

:04:35. > :04:40.a constitutional crisis stalking the land. Now the Chancellor has

:04:41. > :04:52.accepted my advice. Can the leader clarify two things? Firstly, what is

:04:53. > :04:55.the status of the tax credits, thresholds that were voted down in

:04:56. > :05:00.the house of lords and are hanging around in the air? Will he bring

:05:01. > :05:05.them back in a different shape or what? Secondly, according to the

:05:06. > :05:11.resolution foundation, low income families on Universal Credit will be

:05:12. > :05:19.worse off by ?1300 in 2020, and according to the IFF, in the last 30

:05:20. > :05:26.minutes, the Spending Review will leave 2.6 million families ?1600

:05:27. > :05:31.worse off next year. -- IFS. It is time the government owned up. Can we

:05:32. > :05:36.have a debate about the sale of UK national asset? Since the Chancellor

:05:37. > :05:41.came to office, he has sold off the student loans book, the Royal mail,

:05:42. > :05:46.the future of nuclear power, and he announced that he is going to sell

:05:47. > :05:50.off the land Registry, the Ordnance Survey, the air-traffic control, and

:05:51. > :05:58.the green investment bank. I have a little book here which I am going to

:05:59. > :06:04.give to the Leader of the House. He can come to my study later. It is a

:06:05. > :06:09.copy of the Shakespeare play Richard the second. I am sure you will

:06:10. > :06:17.remember the wonderful speech, this royal throne of Kings, the demi-

:06:18. > :06:23.paradise, but will they ever remember that the speech ends, is

:06:24. > :06:27.now leased out like to tenements or pelting farm? Shakespeare predicted

:06:28. > :06:33.it 400 years ago that there are going to sell off all our national

:06:34. > :06:40.asset, and there we have it! Can we have a debate on the Chancellor's

:06:41. > :06:47.roast on page 76, I am sure you have seen it, -- boast, that the

:06:48. > :06:52.government has taken some steps to reduce the cost of politics, but

:06:53. > :06:58.that is not true, is it? Actually, the cost and the number of special

:06:59. > :07:04.advisers who are purely party political appointees, has driven

:07:05. > :07:10.dramatically since 2010. In 2009, there were 74 costing ?5.9 million,

:07:11. > :07:16.and in 2014, there were 100 and three, costing ?8.4 million. The

:07:17. > :07:20.Prime Minister promised before he became Prime Minister that no

:07:21. > :07:25.Minister of his would have more than one special adviser, but the Leader

:07:26. > :07:32.of the House has two! The Chief Whip is two. The Chancellor alone has at

:07:33. > :07:36.least ten special advisers. We don't know the total because the

:07:37. > :07:45.government won't publish a list that in 2014, it was 29 more at a cost of

:07:46. > :07:48.?2.5 million more a year and on top of that, the Prime Minister has

:07:49. > :07:55.appointed members of the House of Lords faster than any other Prime

:07:56. > :08:01.Minister in history. 200, costing ?2.9 million a year. The annual Tory

:08:02. > :08:08.party invoice to the taxpayer has gone up by ?5.4 million. Yesterday

:08:09. > :08:12.the Chancellor said he is going to cut the money provided to opposition

:08:13. > :08:22.parties to all opposition parties by 19%. What goes around comes around

:08:23. > :08:25.is, I would remind the Leader of the House. Canada leader confirmed that

:08:26. > :08:34.this is not up to Chancellor, it is up to this house. It was done on

:08:35. > :08:37.cross-party consultation. Was there any discussion with the opposition

:08:38. > :08:43.parties? Was there any discussion with the finance committee of this

:08:44. > :08:51.House? Did the Leader of the House know about this proposal? Labour,

:08:52. > :08:54.when we were in government, when never afraid of scrutiny so we

:08:55. > :09:00.introduced short money in the first place, and we increase it in 1997,

:09:01. > :09:07.and that meant that the Tory party received, it claimed, 45 when ?7

:09:08. > :09:13.million from the taxpayer between 1997 and 2010. Will the Tory party

:09:14. > :09:19.now be taking and 19% cut in the cost of special advisers? If not,

:09:20. > :09:22.won't voters be right to conclude that this is a naked attempt to

:09:23. > :09:26.hobble the opposition and rigged the system? It is a partisan measure

:09:27. > :09:35.being introduced because the government hates scrutiny. Two weeks

:09:36. > :09:39.ago, the Leader of the House urged all members to do the online fire

:09:40. > :09:52.safety training. I have done it, has he done it yet? Yes!

:09:53. > :10:00.LAUGHTER Can I start by thanking the shadow leader for his kind words

:10:01. > :10:02.about the Prime Minister. It was a measured and sensible debate, this

:10:03. > :10:08.is a serious matter which should cross party divides for all of us to

:10:09. > :10:15.consider what is in the interests of our nation. The tone was excellent

:10:16. > :10:20.and it was right and proper. I am sure everybody would agree that it

:10:21. > :10:23.is right and proper for the Prime Minister to die just the comments

:10:24. > :10:26.from the house this morning before deciding what further action to

:10:27. > :10:32.take, and to give the foreign effects Select Committee a moment to

:10:33. > :10:35.take a look at this. We will come back to this House shortly and the

:10:36. > :10:41.Prime Minister will make clear his intentions in the very near future.

:10:42. > :10:44.Mr Speaker, I paid tribute to weeks ago to the musical skills of the

:10:45. > :10:50.honourable gentleman who speaks for the Scottish Nationalists. He is

:10:51. > :10:54.clearly not alone in this place in showing such skills. I would like to

:10:55. > :10:58.pay tribute to the members of the Parliamentary choir for their

:10:59. > :11:06.polished performance at Cadogan hall last night. Last night, there was

:11:07. > :11:11.harmony and melody. Following a request from the shadow leader, I do

:11:12. > :11:16.try to mark important anniversaries on a Thursday morning, and I have

:11:17. > :11:21.two for him. After yesterday, it will have great resonance for him.

:11:22. > :11:26.It is exactly 30 years since Neil Kinnock began his purge of militant

:11:27. > :11:30.infiltrators from the Labour Party. By coincidence, it is 80 years ago

:11:31. > :11:37.this month that the Chinese Communist Party and its new leader.

:11:38. > :11:42.Chairman Mao. The man who became one of the most brutal dictators of

:11:43. > :11:49.modern times. After yesterday, I wonder which the shadow leader will

:11:50. > :11:52.celebrate the most. You talked of the Wilkinson Sword, and I

:11:53. > :11:56.congratulate him for that. I did not see his Twitter feed that I saw him

:11:57. > :12:02.carrying a 3 foot long sword into the macro re-this morning. Given his

:12:03. > :12:08.record in knifing Tony Blair, does this mark another assassination? He

:12:09. > :12:20.asked a question of special advisers. -- House. Firstly, the

:12:21. > :12:24.cost of politics is falling. We have cut advertising, support for

:12:25. > :12:29.ministerial offices, but he made the ports point about short money. Sure

:12:30. > :12:34.money has risen by 50% since 2010. That is after the changes set out

:12:35. > :12:42.yesterday and it has simply returned to the level it was set out -- to

:12:43. > :12:45.the level that was set out in 2010. He asked about the Autumn Statement

:12:46. > :12:49.and used the joke about smoke and mirrors. We heard the joke yesterday

:12:50. > :12:56.from the honourable member for Cardiff North. Sorry, Cardiff West!

:12:57. > :13:00.What he doesn't say is that you want a two-day debate on the Autumn

:13:01. > :13:05.Statement. After yesterday, I am sure they have heard quite enough.

:13:06. > :13:10.He asked about the tax credits changes. The statutory instrument is

:13:11. > :13:15.not being moved as the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out. We are not

:13:16. > :13:18.pursuing those proposals. He asked about working families in 2020. The

:13:19. > :13:24.introduction of the national living wage means that for somebody on

:13:25. > :13:29.today's minimum wage, by 2020 they will be earning nearly ?5,000 a year

:13:30. > :13:34.more than they are today. He raised the question of the sale of assets.

:13:35. > :13:39.I would simply say that as a time when we are looking to build a

:13:40. > :13:44.nuclear industry in this country, I look back to when the last

:13:45. > :13:51.government sold a British nuclear power station firm overseas at a

:13:52. > :13:56.time when we were just thinking about building new nuclear power

:13:57. > :14:00.stations, so I will take no lessons about the sale of assets from a

:14:01. > :14:05.party that takes steps without strategy or thought, and one of the

:14:06. > :14:16.reasons we have this challenge is because for 13 years, they did

:14:17. > :14:20.nothing about it. On recess dates, the prime concern for this

:14:21. > :14:25.Government is to get its business through the House. We will seek

:14:26. > :14:28.appropriate recess time when we can but now I am concerned about putting

:14:29. > :14:35.through the manifesto on which we were rightly elected last May. Mr

:14:36. > :14:39.Speaker, the most egregious unreformed procedures in this House

:14:40. > :14:44.relates to private members bills. The conduct of this place and the

:14:45. > :14:47.execution of those bills is simply appalling, Mr Speaker. Can I urge

:14:48. > :14:56.the leader of the house to join with the procedure committee to try and

:14:57. > :15:05.find a way forward? The honourable gentleman for Shipley is now my

:15:06. > :15:09.Moriarty if I am Sherlock Holmes. It has ever been referred to as

:15:10. > :15:12.Moriarty before! But I take the point that is chair of the

:15:13. > :15:17.procedures committee he is better placed than anyone. I am always

:15:18. > :15:21.happy to appear in front of his committee and discuss these issues

:15:22. > :15:30.with him. Will come out with wise words about how this should be

:15:31. > :15:34.handled in future. Can I thank the leader of the house about next

:15:35. > :15:40.week's business? I have not got Chairman Mao or Shakespeare to offer

:15:41. > :15:47.him. Can we get back to the debate on Syria? We are concerned that

:15:48. > :15:52.there should be firm proposals about when it should be brought to the

:15:53. > :15:59.House. 103 members spoke in the statement and we have to find

:16:00. > :16:01.sufficient time. Proper time needs to be allocated to Members of

:16:02. > :16:06.Parliament to bring forward the very serious concerns that they may

:16:07. > :16:12.have. Can the leader of the house at least state today that we would have

:16:13. > :16:17.a minimum of two days to debate any Syrian action before a vote is

:16:18. > :16:23.taken? I know there are talks about smoke and mirrors following

:16:24. > :16:29.yesterday's autumn spending review. We very much welcome the grinding

:16:30. > :16:32.U-turn that has been committed when it comes to tax credits but we are

:16:33. > :16:37.concerned about what is proposed further down the line. IFS have

:16:38. > :16:40.already started to raise concerns about what is proposed in terms of

:16:41. > :16:43.what will happen when universal credit is put into place and the

:16:44. > :16:49.other reforms at the sharp end of housing benefit. We know that the

:16:50. > :16:52.role of universal credit has been less than successful. Shambles is

:16:53. > :16:57.the word that could be associated with it. Can we have some statement

:16:58. > :17:01.or debate about where we are on universal credit and how this will

:17:02. > :17:05.impact on the plans for tax credits? It would be useful to have some kind

:17:06. > :17:11.of statement from the Government on that. Something very dramatic

:17:12. > :17:16.happened in the House of Lords this week. Nothing very dramatic usually

:17:17. > :17:20.happens but for some reason it did. What they said was that the Scotland

:17:21. > :17:25.Bill should be delayed until the critical fiscal framework is agreed

:17:26. > :17:29.to. The last Conservative Secretary of State put it like this, like

:17:30. > :17:34.purchasing a car without looking at the engine. If Scotland Bill without

:17:35. > :17:37.a sufficient fiscal framework. How is the Government responding to

:17:38. > :17:43.these calls and what efforts is the Government making to get that engine

:17:44. > :17:47.into place? Another breaking news story is on immigration figures. Net

:17:48. > :17:55.immigration figures have reached a record high of 336,000, according to

:17:56. > :17:59.the Office for National Statistics. We question the Government's ability

:18:00. > :18:04.to get migration down to the tens of thousands. We are living in a

:18:05. > :18:10.interconnected, globalised world, so there was almost an impossibility

:18:11. > :18:15.from the outset. The Government is likely to raise its rhetoric when it

:18:16. > :18:18.comes to migration and we hope it does not conflict it with response

:18:19. > :18:22.pretty on duty when it comes to Syrian refugees. We hope there will

:18:23. > :18:27.be no consolation on this, especially when we go down to

:18:28. > :18:33.further bombing in Syria, where our obligations will be further

:18:34. > :18:37.increased. A statement, especially from the bellicose backbenchers,

:18:38. > :18:43.that there will be no consolation between migration figures and the

:18:44. > :18:53.treatment of refugees is required. Can I extend to him an invitation to

:18:54. > :18:57.come to our gig on Tuesday at the Strangers bar. If he wants to make a

:18:58. > :19:05.contribution he would be welcome to that as well. I would be delighted

:19:06. > :19:09.to pop into the Strangers bar next Tuesday. We are going off at seven

:19:10. > :19:13.o'clock anyway. I don't know what time they are starting but I would

:19:14. > :19:20.be delighted to hear him on that night in full flow. Seriously, I

:19:21. > :19:24.have set out the debate is quite clearly over the next two weeks. I

:19:25. > :19:29.would have to return it out to a supplementary business statement.

:19:30. > :19:34.Once people have had the chance to consider the comments on all sides

:19:35. > :19:39.today. I cannot give an indication of the timetable but if it takes

:19:40. > :19:43.place in the next couple of weeks, I will come back and make a further

:19:44. > :19:47.statement to the House. On the issue of tax credits and universal credit,

:19:48. > :19:51.may I simply remind him that the move from the national minimum wage

:19:52. > :19:57.to the national living wage will for Scots as well deliver by 2020 and

:19:58. > :20:00.increasing income of almost ?5,000? That will make a fundamental

:20:01. > :20:04.difference to people on low incomes in this country. It is something we

:20:05. > :20:08.should all welcome and I believe it will transform the lives of many

:20:09. > :20:12.people on the lowest incomes. On the Scotland Bill, the delay, just

:20:13. > :20:16.because somebody proposes something does not mean it will actually

:20:17. > :20:21.happen. There was a commitment to deliver it as quickly as possible.

:20:22. > :20:25.I'm delighted that Lord Smith has accepted that the Smith commission

:20:26. > :20:28.report is being implemented in full. I await to see what powers the

:20:29. > :20:32.Scottish National Party actually uses because until now it has talked

:20:33. > :20:37.a lot about powers but has shown little sign of using them. On the

:20:38. > :20:41.issue of immigration and Syrian refugees, we have set out very

:20:42. > :20:44.clearly our obligations internationally to help Syrian

:20:45. > :20:52.refugees. We are taking 20,000 into this country but crucially we are

:20:53. > :20:55.doing what other nations are not doing, and that is providing support

:20:56. > :20:59.on the ground to the 7 million refugees in camps near Syria, where

:21:00. > :21:05.the need is a cute and they have not made their way to Europe. There is a

:21:06. > :21:08.very real need to provide support for those people on the ground and

:21:09. > :21:13.we are doing more than almost anybody else to look after them.

:21:14. > :21:18.Finally, Mr Speaker, I was deeply disappointed to see that he missed

:21:19. > :21:25.out on the prize for the leading Scot at Westminster. Had we had a

:21:26. > :21:31.vote, we would have put a tick in his box! I am keen to accommodate

:21:32. > :21:36.interest but we have had a very heavy exchange before this, and

:21:37. > :21:40.rightly so, but there are more than 20 honourable members who wish to

:21:41. > :21:44.contribute in the debate on airports. Therefore these exchanges

:21:45. > :21:49.must conclude no later than 2 o'clock. I hope colleagues will

:21:50. > :21:59.tailor their contributions accordingly. Our skyline is

:22:00. > :22:03.dominated by the power station that provide enough electricity for

:22:04. > :22:08.roughly half a million homes. With the announcement last week that

:22:09. > :22:13.coal-fired power stations would be phased out by 2025, can we have a

:22:14. > :22:19.debate in Government time to discuss the conversion of coal-fired power

:22:20. > :22:26.stations to biomass? This is of course a very important area. In

:22:27. > :22:31.order to meet our environmental commitments, we have committed to

:22:32. > :22:35.moving towards renewables. It will be part of Government strategy and

:22:36. > :22:39.local planning strategies to see existing sites reuse for electricity

:22:40. > :22:43.generation where it is possible. I will make sure the energy secretary

:22:44. > :22:49.is aware of her concerns so they can address the next time they are in

:22:50. > :22:53.the House. Dudley Council is losing half its funding, forcing councils

:22:54. > :23:02.to make terrible decisions about front line services like libraries

:23:03. > :23:08.and museums, places I have visited since I was a child. Savings have

:23:09. > :23:13.got to be made. But Dudley is losing ?86 per person and Windsor only ?18

:23:14. > :23:18.per person. Is that fair? Can we have a debate so that we can tell

:23:19. > :23:23.the people of Dudley why that is fair? The overall package that was

:23:24. > :23:31.announced yesterday provides a range of things for local Government.

:23:32. > :23:34.After years of a Labour Government, the support provided to areas in

:23:35. > :23:38.typically Conservative parts of the country was minimal, where is the

:23:39. > :23:44.support provided to Labour areas was very generous. If we take decisions

:23:45. > :23:46.that impact on Labour areas, it is because the grant is because the

:23:47. > :23:55.grants to Conservative areas are very low. On Tuesday, the national

:23:56. > :24:01.confidential inquiry into patient outcome and deaths reported that

:24:02. > :24:04.patients are at risk of death and long-term publications often because

:24:05. > :24:15.of critical delays in identifying and treating conditions. --

:24:16. > :24:23.long-term complications. It causes 40,000 UK deaths annually. Can I ask

:24:24. > :24:29.the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group to consider a

:24:30. > :24:33.Government debate on this so we can discuss the matter with the minister

:24:34. > :24:35.and find out how we can improve recognition and treatment of sepsis

:24:36. > :24:41.and better measure its long-term burden on our health services? Can I

:24:42. > :24:45.pay tribute to my honourable friend for the work she is doing? If

:24:46. > :24:49.condition affects a large number of people and can have a really

:24:50. > :24:54.dramatic affect on them and their families. This is precisely the

:24:55. > :24:57.subject that should be brought to the backbench business committee

:24:58. > :25:02.because it will affect constituents across the House and it is precisely

:25:03. > :25:18.for that at that time is allocated. We are not against cutting the cost

:25:19. > :25:22.of politics. We are doing nothing to cut the allowances of members who do

:25:23. > :25:28.not bother to turn up and contribute to the House. Why has the Government

:25:29. > :25:31.done this? We will have discussions with all the parties affected by the

:25:32. > :25:37.change over the coming days, including with his party. I would

:25:38. > :25:41.say to him, the politics in Northern Ireland are complicated and our

:25:42. > :25:48.prime desire is to make sure that we continue to see Northern Ireland

:25:49. > :25:52.peaceful, developing and prosperous. Could we have a statement on the

:25:53. > :25:58.Syrian refugee relocation programme so we can establish the facts of

:25:59. > :26:01.which local authorities are taking refugees in? Unfortunately local

:26:02. > :26:05.authorities like Derby City Council are playing party politics with

:26:06. > :26:12.people's lives, leading to misinformation on what is actually

:26:13. > :26:18.happening. Letters be clear, we collectively as a nation have a duty

:26:19. > :26:21.towards Syrian refugees. I do not know about the situation in Derby

:26:22. > :26:25.but it would not be excusable for anyone in this country to mix party

:26:26. > :26:35.politics with the humanitarian needs of refugees. Yesterday when the

:26:36. > :26:39.Chancellor was still on his feet, the Government said they would

:26:40. > :26:42.renege yet again on carbon capture and storage, by withdrawing the

:26:43. > :26:47.billion pound funding that they promised in their manifesto just a

:26:48. > :26:53.few weeks ago. This is a disgraceful act of betrayal and sends an

:26:54. > :27:00.appalling signal to people wishing to invest in our energy sector. When

:27:01. > :27:06.will the Secretary of State come to this House and make a statement to

:27:07. > :27:12.explain to my constituents in Peterhead why they have been led at

:27:13. > :27:15.the garden path yet again? We had to make difficult decisions in the

:27:16. > :27:20.spending review. On renewables, we have made huge progress since 2010.

:27:21. > :27:25.In the second quarter of this year, more than 25% of our energy was

:27:26. > :27:28.generated from renewable sources. That is a powerful indicator of the

:27:29. > :27:34.way that we have put money into renewables and the way they are

:27:35. > :27:38.playing a bigger role in society. Can the lead of the House arrange

:27:39. > :27:47.for the Secretary of State for Education to come to the dispatch

:27:48. > :27:50.box and look at the history of education in our country? I want to

:27:51. > :27:56.make sure that every youngster in the Ribble Valley has the

:27:57. > :27:59.opportunity to look at the ideology of great figures, including Chairman

:28:00. > :28:04.Mao, and compare the thoughts in the Little red book, which we now have a

:28:05. > :28:09.copy of, to what actually happened during their rule, which was

:28:10. > :28:17.repression, torture, cultural wasteland and the death of 45

:28:18. > :28:25.million people in a famine. There has been a delay getting into the

:28:26. > :28:28.debate. I understand the point my honourable friend is making. I

:28:29. > :28:35.assume it would be a blue book for him and not a red book. His usual

:28:36. > :28:39.chirpiness disappeared yesterday when the red book appeared. My

:28:40. > :28:48.honourable friend makes a good point. Nobody should treat lightly

:28:49. > :28:58.the works are brutal dictators. I want to start off with an apology to

:28:59. > :29:01.yourself. I would like to ask the leader of the house to make a

:29:02. > :29:11.statement telling us how he will make sure he can answer questions

:29:12. > :29:14.accurately. I asked if the Scottish revenue would increase in real

:29:15. > :29:16.terms. He said it would go up but there has been a real terms cut of

:29:17. > :29:25.5%. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will

:29:26. > :29:30.be back on Tuesday and the honourable gentleman will be able to

:29:31. > :29:36.question the Chancellor and raise the issues with him that he raised

:29:37. > :29:44.with me. I thank you for allowing the Prime Minister to answer the

:29:45. > :29:50.number of questions he did today. Syria is an important issue and we

:29:51. > :29:53.do need to debate it fully, so when the leader comes to this house, with

:29:54. > :29:59.a change in the business programme, can I suggest that we debate Syria

:30:00. > :30:05.on no limit on when the closure comes? If necessary, we can speak

:30:06. > :30:15.through the night and everybody can get in. Firstly, we are all now

:30:16. > :30:17.going to be digesting the Prime Minister's statement, the submission

:30:18. > :30:23.to the Foreign Affairs Committee, the questions raised here today, the

:30:24. > :30:26.concerns raised today, and we have a debate on Monday and I would

:30:27. > :30:31.encourage members to use the debate is an opportunity to raise further

:30:32. > :30:34.concerns they have. I know the Prime Minister will read it carefully and

:30:35. > :30:42.he wants to take note of views on all sides of the House. He wants to

:30:43. > :30:45.take the House with him. Buried in the CSI documents was the

:30:46. > :30:54.announcement that HMRC will contract out that debt collection, fraud and

:30:55. > :30:59.error complaints. This is the same private sector provider who sent

:31:00. > :31:03.threatening letters to many of our constituents and whose many mistakes

:31:04. > :31:08.have caused serious financial hardship. Will the government debate

:31:09. > :31:17.on whether tax credits debt collection has been successful? I

:31:18. > :31:22.will make sure the Treasury and ministers are aware of this and they

:31:23. > :31:28.are backing here next Tuesday. I don't want to see any legitimate

:31:29. > :31:35.claimant accused of doing something wrong. At the same time, people have

:31:36. > :31:40.a duty to watch over affairs and if they are paid too much money, they

:31:41. > :31:46.should tell the authorities. It needs to be got right. My

:31:47. > :31:52.constituent suffered a serious loss of funds from Barclays Bank,

:31:53. > :31:57.possibly through theft, and I don't believe the bank is taking the

:31:58. > :32:03.matter seriously enough. Custodians of customers' funds, Cammy have a

:32:04. > :32:11.debate on this? I can't comment on individual circumstances that where

:32:12. > :32:14.individual customers can be the victims of fraud, I would always

:32:15. > :32:17.expect banks to put their customers first in dealing with an issue like

:32:18. > :32:21.this and ensure they are dealt with properly and easily and not left in

:32:22. > :32:31.a position where they are disadvantaged as a result. Do you

:32:32. > :32:36.share my disappointment that recent irresponsible newspaper headlines,

:32:37. > :32:42.misleading reports, will have done nothing constructive and puts

:32:43. > :32:51.communities at risk of Islamic abuse? Can we talk about the use of

:32:52. > :32:58.Daesh instead of Islamic State? Well, Mr Speaker, let's be clear on

:32:59. > :33:01.this. The current threat that we face in this country has nothing

:33:02. > :33:08.whatsoever to do with the vast, vast, vast majority of Muslims in

:33:09. > :33:11.this country and elsewhere in the world, it is propagated by a

:33:12. > :33:15.minority. That minority must be dealt with with fourth and

:33:16. > :33:18.effectiveness wherever necessary, but we need to send a message to the

:33:19. > :33:22.Muslim community in this country that they are valued and we accept

:33:23. > :33:29.that they have nothing to do with what is going on. Saturday the 5th

:33:30. > :33:32.of December is small-business Saturday, it encourages people to

:33:33. > :33:44.use small retailers and businesses of which the Isle of Wight has

:33:45. > :33:47.many. Could the Leader of the House assist in getting four as a debate

:33:48. > :33:53.on the subject and other initiatives which promote independent local

:33:54. > :34:00.companies? I think small-business Saturday is a worthwhile event.

:34:01. > :34:05.Please urge local businesses in coming days. I might give up pleb to

:34:06. > :34:11.the Epsom business awards which I launched five years ago and the

:34:12. > :34:18.final is the night. We have a debate on small-business Saturday and I

:34:19. > :34:22.hope all members will join in events to support people who were immensely

:34:23. > :34:28.hard and deliver essential services to our society. The National

:34:29. > :34:34.sidereal summit in Rotherham, the Business Secretary promised that the

:34:35. > :34:39.three working groups he set would report back on actions to be taken

:34:40. > :34:46.on steel before Christmas. -- National steel summit. Coming

:34:47. > :34:50.statement on the programme forward? I will make a reminder to the

:34:51. > :34:56.Business Secretary about that commitment. We take the future of

:34:57. > :34:57.the steel industry seriously and the statement yesterday contained

:34:58. > :35:04.provisions around high energy users and energy costs. There is a lot to

:35:05. > :35:07.do and I can assure him that the Business Secretary and members of

:35:08. > :35:15.the team take this issue immensely seriously. Would the Leader of the

:35:16. > :35:18.House kindly explain what opportunities there are to discuss

:35:19. > :35:27.the recognition available to Armed Forces personnel who have served in

:35:28. > :35:31.often highly dangerous counter piracy operations of the Horn of

:35:32. > :35:36.Africa? If the recognition comes in the form of a medal, would the brave

:35:37. > :35:43.men and women be able to wear the medal proudly as is not always the

:35:44. > :35:46.case with all medals? This is an issue that has been raised before.

:35:47. > :35:49.It is baffling that we should be in a position where we have to discuss

:35:50. > :35:54.these issues. If somebody served our nation and is awarded a medal, they

:35:55. > :35:59.should be able to wear it. I wish my honourable friend well in my

:36:00. > :36:02.campaign, she has my support, and I will make sure the Secretary of

:36:03. > :36:08.State is well aware of what is just plain common sense. Can I ask for a

:36:09. > :36:31.statement or debate in government time on the industrial relations in

:36:32. > :36:34.the DVLA? -- DDS a -- DVSA. The current industrial action on

:36:35. > :36:41.contractual changes, is this anyway to treat public sector workers? What

:36:42. > :36:47.you have described is concerning and it will be of concern to the roads

:36:48. > :36:50.Minister. The Minister for the transport department will be in the

:36:51. > :36:55.Commons the week after next and will undoubtably be able to raise the

:36:56. > :37:00.question and I will make sure his concerns are drawn towards this. It

:37:01. > :37:06.is with great sadness that I inform the House that a constituent,

:37:07. > :37:11.97-year-old woman, was the victim of a horrific and cowardly burglary.

:37:12. > :37:15.Can we secure debate on public authorities protecting vulnerable

:37:16. > :37:19.people so I can get on the record that Cardiff Council should not have

:37:20. > :37:24.the orange diamonds on the bins for waste services, highlighting where

:37:25. > :37:30.vulnerable victims live in our city West remarked anything like this is

:37:31. > :37:33.shocking and all of us on this side of the House will express dismay

:37:34. > :37:37.that anybody could commit much an appalling crime against an elderly

:37:38. > :37:42.lady, it defies logic and belief. You make an important point. I will

:37:43. > :37:50.make sure that the issue is drawn to the attention of ministers in the

:37:51. > :37:57.local government departments. Thank you. The Leader of the House will

:37:58. > :38:01.recall that on the 22nd of October I ask if there would be a report from

:38:02. > :38:07.the air accident investigation Branch into the crash in Glasgow,

:38:08. > :38:14.and the report made seven recommendations. May I remind the

:38:15. > :38:20.House that the anniversary of the crash is this Sunday? It is clearly

:38:21. > :38:25.a very sad anniversary for all of those who lost their lives and were

:38:26. > :38:27.injured, and the families of those affected we send our heartfelt

:38:28. > :38:32.sympathies to them what would be a difficult weekend. Report has been

:38:33. > :38:37.published but there are questions unanswered about the circumstances

:38:38. > :38:40.that led to the crash. I will make sure that the aviation Minister is

:38:41. > :38:50.aware of the comments made and they will be in the Commons a week on

:38:51. > :38:55.Thursday. On Sunday a foundation in Bedford is holding a drive for

:38:56. > :39:03.people of Asian origin to join the bone marrow register. The likelihood

:39:04. > :39:12.of a match balls from 60% to 20% for people of African origin. -- falls.

:39:13. > :39:21.Can we have a statement on how we may improve these ratios? You can

:39:22. > :39:25.send our good wishes to the macro for how important their workers. --

:39:26. > :39:28.you can send good wishes from all sides of the House, their work is

:39:29. > :39:34.tremendously important. When people in this country express any concern

:39:35. > :39:37.about the cost nature of this country, one of the replies I give

:39:38. > :39:42.them is that you find one of the strongest elements of unity in this

:39:43. > :39:45.country, in the migrant communities, people who do a really strong and

:39:46. > :39:51.important job for our society and we should pay tribute to them for the

:39:52. > :39:55.work they do. In the Autumn Statement, the Shadow Chancellor

:39:56. > :40:04.made comments on defence that illustrated a lack of understanding.

:40:05. > :40:11.I wonder if we could have a debate on the SDSR? I think we had two

:40:12. > :40:13.hours from the prime and is on Monday about the defence strategy

:40:14. > :40:20.and it is clear what the strategy is. We are investing in defence

:40:21. > :40:24.equipment. -- from the Prime Minister. We are going to have

:40:25. > :40:28.exciting new capabilities. We take responsibility very clearly, it is

:40:29. > :40:32.to defend the nation but it is sad that the SNP with its on Trident,

:40:33. > :40:39.appears to want to remove one of the most important legs from our

:40:40. > :40:45.defences. The general debate on the final report of the airports

:40:46. > :40:53.commission. To move the notion, I called Doctor Tania Mathias. I beg

:40:54. > :41:06.to move the motion standing in my name and the name of my colleagues.

:41:07. > :41:10.I would also like to thank the Backbench Business Committee for

:41:11. > :41:14.allocating time for this debate and thank the members who supported that

:41:15. > :41:19.application and members who are also present here today. I do believe

:41:20. > :41:22.this is an important debate that requires scrutiny before the

:41:23. > :41:28.government make it decision. I would like to pay particular tribute to my

:41:29. > :41:33.colleagues in neighbouring constituencies, the Right Honourable

:41:34. > :41:40.friend the Member for Richmond Park. He is an assiduous

:41:41. > :41:50.campaigner. This report came out in July after two years. ?20 million.

:41:51. > :42:05.In July, many UK families were preparing to go on holiday, perhaps

:42:06. > :42:11.using their local UK airport. I wanted a report about our UK

:42:12. > :42:18.aviation needs but like many people I was disappointed. The report is

:42:19. > :42:31.filled with ifs and buts and is shrouded in fog. We have found fault

:42:32. > :42:33.with analysis. Many councils, Wandsworth Council, Windsor,

:42:34. > :42:41.Maidenhead, they have found fault with the data. Too much fog in this

:42:42. > :42:48.report and the conclusion for expansion at Heathrow will not serve

:42:49. > :42:54.UK's aviation needs. To start with, looking at connectivity, the interim

:42:55. > :42:58.report said a third runway at Heathrow would be at maximum

:42:59. > :43:06.capacity by 2050. The final report advises against a fourth runway. How

:43:07. > :43:14.can this be a long-term option for UK's aviation needs. If we look at

:43:15. > :43:18.domestic destinations, the report shows a decrease from seven to four,

:43:19. > :43:24.is bad luck in Scotland, bad luck for Ireland, and not good news for

:43:25. > :43:29.the Northern Powerhouse. Again, not a good option for the UK long-term

:43:30. > :43:38.aviation needs. Looking at the long haul destinations, the report

:43:39. > :43:44.implies there may 12 extra long haul destinations, but some analysts say

:43:45. > :43:50.that if you compared the expanded runways in Heathrow with two

:43:51. > :43:57.runways, the actual increase in long haul destinations is but one. If we

:43:58. > :44:02.then look at, over a quarter of a million increase in air movements on

:44:03. > :44:06.flights to and from Heathrow, if we look at that, the slot of these M

:44:07. > :44:12.movements, in this report, are going to be in the morning and at peak

:44:13. > :44:18.evening periods. -- M movements. That is when it will affect

:44:19. > :44:27.residents the most. -- sir. If we then come onto the cost. Again, we

:44:28. > :44:30.are shrouded in fog. The independence economic review said,

:44:31. > :44:36.and I quote, to counsel caution. Other analysts talk of double

:44:37. > :44:43.accounting. The report talks of aeronautical charges but the

:44:44. > :44:45.airlines say Heathrow, at present, charges too much in landing fees and

:44:46. > :44:56.they would not pay extra charges. There is also a report of extra cost

:44:57. > :44:59.for the surface access. The environmental audit committee could

:45:00. > :45:05.not work out when they were deliberating with the Chief

:45:06. > :45:09.Executive exactly how many billions this will require and whether the

:45:10. > :45:15.taxpayer pays or whether Heathrow would pay. Is it 20 billion or 5

:45:16. > :45:24.billion? There is talk of a congestion charge in the report.

:45:25. > :45:29.This is not costed out. There are schemes for M25 access, again not

:45:30. > :45:33.costed out. When we look at the effect on residents and we look at

:45:34. > :45:42.the report on noise, it says the noise will be divest it, dispersed.

:45:43. > :45:48.To me with an expanded Heathrow that just means more people are affected.

:45:49. > :45:52.The report does say the noise impact will be at current levels. And yet

:45:53. > :45:57.current levels for my constituency are intolerable. As has been

:45:58. > :46:08.demonstrated by Teddington action group. TfL says 1 million people may

:46:09. > :46:13.be affected by an expanded Heathrow. Heathrow is already the worst

:46:14. > :46:19.airport in Europe for noise pollution. With a third runway,

:46:20. > :46:24.Heathrow would be worse than Charles de Gaulle. It would be worse than

:46:25. > :46:29.Amsterdam. It would be worse than Frankfurt and Munich and Madrid. But

:46:30. > :46:34.beyond this, a third runway at Heathrow means Heathrow would be

:46:35. > :46:40.worse than Charles de Gaulle, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Munich and

:46:41. > :46:45.Madrid combine. This is not the way forward for the UK's aviation needs.

:46:46. > :46:50.When the report talks of a night flight ban, which incidentally the

:46:51. > :46:54.chief executive refuses to accept, and this isn't a total night flight

:46:55. > :47:03.ban in the report, it is a quiet night night flight ban, it does not

:47:04. > :47:10.conform to WHO standards, but even so, if you can have a quasi-night

:47:11. > :47:14.flight ban for three runways, why can't my constituents have a night

:47:15. > :47:22.flight ban tonight with two runways? There are already 13 flights between

:47:23. > :47:27.4:30am and 6am, intolerable. The report does talk about an authority

:47:28. > :47:31.to liaise with the community. The report does point out there is no

:47:32. > :47:36.Airport and the community. So why Airport and the community. So why

:47:37. > :47:44.would a third runway increase the trust? The report talks of a noise

:47:45. > :47:52.levy. Will that be the passengers? The airlines? For my residents, they

:47:53. > :47:58.are not interested in a noise levy. They are interested in a good

:47:59. > :48:03.night's sleep. The report talks about air quality and here there is

:48:04. > :48:09.less fog, because the report does say expansion at Heathrow is

:48:10. > :48:15.contingent on performance in air quality. But Heathrow cannot manage

:48:16. > :48:21.air quality with two runways, so how will it manage with three? And why

:48:22. > :48:29.in the report is nitrous dioxide levelling compared with Heathrow to

:48:30. > :48:40.the worst road in London? Why does it not compare it to the EU legal

:48:41. > :48:44.levels? I am coming. The report does not include the hypothesis that

:48:45. > :48:53.actually going forwards move may not want a hub airport. The report does

:48:54. > :48:56.not consider that actually regional airports may want the competition

:48:57. > :49:05.that an expanded Heathrow would remove. If the report is looking for

:49:06. > :49:08.a hub airport, then the Gatwick Airport option shows the same

:49:09. > :49:16.economic benefits and less environmental impact. The report

:49:17. > :49:24.does not, as we all know, consider a hub airport not in an urban area and

:49:25. > :49:29.perhaps in an estuary. I would want the Government before it makes a

:49:30. > :49:34.decision to consider that for Heathrow, with a night ban, that it

:49:35. > :49:39.will not accept, with a ban that the report calls for further expansion,

:49:40. > :49:44.with the problem of environmental impact it cannot address with two

:49:45. > :49:51.runways, Heathrow cannot be the hub it aspires to be. The Prime Minister

:49:52. > :50:02.in 2009, when he was Leader of the Opposition, said no ifs, no buts, no

:50:03. > :50:12.third runway. This is 342 pages of ifs and buts. It is not a solution

:50:13. > :50:16.for the UK's future aviation needs and before the Government makes its

:50:17. > :50:27.decision, I would urge it to remember the promise of the Prime

:50:28. > :50:30.Minister. The question is that this House should consider the final

:50:31. > :50:39.report of the airport commission. We now come to Sadiq Khan. Thank you,

:50:40. > :50:48.Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak. I congratulate the

:50:49. > :50:53.honourable member for Twickenham. Thank you for securing the debate

:50:54. > :50:57.today. The first question we need to ask ourselves is whether we think

:50:58. > :51:01.there is a need for increased flight capacity in this part of the

:51:02. > :51:06.country. We know London has been the global economic powerhouse for

:51:07. > :51:11.centuries. Built on its openness to people, ideas and trade. My view is

:51:12. > :51:15.there is a need for increased flight capacity in this part of the

:51:16. > :51:20.country. The Davis commission then went on to look at the way of

:51:21. > :51:25.addressing the need for increased flight capacity and they concluded

:51:26. > :51:30.there should be a new runway at Heathrow. I disagree with the

:51:31. > :51:38.conclusion reached by them. I think it is possible to increase the need

:51:39. > :51:41.for flight capacity without the additional problems of noise

:51:42. > :51:45.pollution and have been taught about and the problems of air-quality that

:51:46. > :51:49.have been talked about, and to remind ourselves of the challenges

:51:50. > :51:56.we face in London. Last year alone almost 10,000 Londoners died as a

:51:57. > :51:59.direct result of air-quality. There are children whose lungs are

:52:00. > :52:03.underdeveloped in parts of London because of air pollution. A couple

:52:04. > :52:09.of months ago, the UK Supreme Court held that there was in breach of the

:52:10. > :52:11.EU and UK air pollution. A couple of months ago, the UK Supreme Court

:52:12. > :52:13.held that there was in breach of EU and UK air-quality directives.

:52:14. > :52:16.Air-quality in London is a killer. It makes you sick and it is illegal.

:52:17. > :52:25.In those circumstances, I don't know how a third runway can meet the

:52:26. > :52:28.Supreme Court's judgment. Without building a new runway, even now I

:52:29. > :52:35.don't see how Heathrow is addressing that problem. And the problems of

:52:36. > :52:43.surface transport going between the two runways as well, let alone with

:52:44. > :52:48.a third. I will give way. I am grateful that the former transport

:52:49. > :52:54.minister has given way. When was it that he changed his mind on

:52:55. > :52:57.Heathrow, given that he was a transport minister under a Labour

:52:58. > :53:02.administration that opted for a third runway at Heathrow and he

:53:03. > :53:06.fought the 2010 general election on a pledge that a Labour Government

:53:07. > :53:12.would build a third runway at Heathrow? Can I thank the right

:53:13. > :53:18.honourable gentleman that intervention? He will know that in

:53:19. > :53:22.2010 when we lost that election, the then Government had a report from

:53:23. > :53:26.Davis which came up with three recommendations and I have listened

:53:27. > :53:29.to that and I have read the Supreme Court judgment. I have met the

:53:30. > :53:33.teachers that cannot teach during the daytime because of the noise in

:53:34. > :53:37.the classrooms that my honourable friend has been talking about. I

:53:38. > :53:41.have met those that have taken the case to the Supreme Court. I have

:53:42. > :53:45.met some of the children struggling and suffering from ill health. The

:53:46. > :53:50.challenge is how we address the need for increased flight capacity, a

:53:51. > :53:57.case that I still accept now in this part of the country. Does he agree

:53:58. > :54:01.that the need for increased flight capacity could be met in large part

:54:02. > :54:05.by greater use of regional airports, like the brilliant airport in

:54:06. > :54:11.Birmingham which contributes ?1 billion to the UK economy, within a

:54:12. > :54:20.two hour drive of 35 million people? And even better when we create HS2.

:54:21. > :54:24.He makes a great case for supporting and investing in regional airports.

:54:25. > :54:28.Birmingham is our second city and we should be supporting Birmingham. My

:54:29. > :54:33.worry is that if the recommendations are accepted, the report will not

:54:34. > :54:39.allow that to happen. There is also a way of addressing the flight

:54:40. > :54:44.problem in this country at Gatwick. A new runway would address the

:54:45. > :54:48.flight capacity issue and you would get the jobs that this part of the

:54:49. > :54:52.country is always in need of. You get the growth, but more

:54:53. > :54:57.importantly, you get more competition for Heathrow Airport. We

:54:58. > :55:01.want a better Heathrow Airport, not a bigger one. I will give way that

:55:02. > :55:11.it is the last time because I need to make progress. I am a central

:55:12. > :55:15.London MP as he is and a third runway would definitely affect my

:55:16. > :55:18.constituents in relation to the issues that he raises about air

:55:19. > :55:22.quality and I very much agree with them. But why does he think the

:55:23. > :55:26.Davis commission was so categorical in its conclusion that it did not

:55:27. > :55:32.give a view to the idea that there should be a third runway at Gatwick?

:55:33. > :55:37.I personally would have preferred a Gatwick suggestion but that is not

:55:38. > :55:41.what the Davis commission has put into place. He will be aware that

:55:42. > :55:49.Davis did not roll out a new runway at Gatwick. An option which he did

:55:50. > :55:53.with the fantasy estuary island airport. He did not roll out a third

:55:54. > :56:06.runway at the Gaelic airport and what is important... I will give way

:56:07. > :56:11.but then I to make progress. Would he agree that in the report, the

:56:12. > :56:15.actual data that they have used for Gatwick is now known to be

:56:16. > :56:21.inaccurate? That is the point I was going to make so am grateful for

:56:22. > :56:27.that intervention. In relation to connectivity at Gatwick versus

:56:28. > :56:33.Heathrow, the figures are very dependent on data. Economic

:56:34. > :56:37.benefits, 10.9 million at Gatwick at 11.8 at Heathrow. The cost of

:56:38. > :56:43.expansion at Gatwick are cheaper at 7.8 versus ?15.6 billion. Public

:56:44. > :56:49.subsidy requires far less than Heathrow Airport. Deliverability, no

:56:50. > :56:59.need to build a tunnel under the M25 to destroy villages and relocate

:57:00. > :57:02.waste plants. Noise, an important issue that concerns not simply heard

:57:03. > :57:07.that my honourable friends in the neighbouring seats as well. -- not

:57:08. > :57:22.simply heard that my honourable friends. Gatwick output is not

:57:23. > :57:26.breaching any air-quality Lovitz and it never has but Heathrow is

:57:27. > :57:34.currently breaching air-quality limits, both UK and EU limits. It is

:57:35. > :57:39.difficult to see how the UK can meet the Supreme Court judgment with a

:57:40. > :57:42.new runway at Heathrow Airport. This is an important debate about an

:57:43. > :57:46.important issue. I am passionately in favour of increased their

:57:47. > :57:50.capacity in this part of the country because it would lead to more jobs

:57:51. > :57:55.and growth. Anybody who wants there to be more jobs in London and once

:57:56. > :58:01.there to be growth in London and one said to be better competition with

:58:02. > :58:05.Heathrow Airport cannot be against increased capacity in this part of

:58:06. > :58:09.the country. Anyone who rules out a new runway at Heathrow and Gatwick

:58:10. > :58:17.is playing hard and loose with jobs in London. I want to challenge the

:58:18. > :58:21.notion that everything has to be in London and the South East. Why does

:58:22. > :58:25.increase capacity have to be at Gatwick or Heathrow? Why not make

:58:26. > :58:29.greater use of regional airports? Why do the extra jobs need to be in

:58:30. > :58:33.London and the South East where you cannot afford to buy a House? Let's

:58:34. > :58:38.have proper devolution to the rest of the country. Support regional

:58:39. > :58:44.countries and regional airports. Here I disagree with my honourable

:58:45. > :58:47.friend. If London and the South East does well, it is not at the expense

:58:48. > :58:53.of Birmingham. I think Birmingham is better than that. I think London and

:58:54. > :58:59.the South East can do well. Being against airport expansion in the

:59:00. > :59:05.South East period is a position that is damaging to jobs and businesses

:59:06. > :59:09.and Mrs a huge opportunity. I support the honourable friends who

:59:10. > :59:10.are against a runway at Heathrow and I support those in favour of a

:59:11. > :59:22.runway at Gatwick. The Congratulations on securing the

:59:23. > :59:25.debate and on the manner on the presenter Jill debate but I

:59:26. > :59:30.profoundly disagree with it. May I apologise that I cannot be here at

:59:31. > :59:36.5pm, I have an unavoidable commitments but I shall stay and

:59:37. > :59:40.listen to as much of the debate as I can. My position is clear, I'm an

:59:41. > :59:49.aviator and believe that it is impossible to have too many runways!

:59:50. > :59:53.LAUGHTER Therefore, I am fully supportive of a third runway at

:59:54. > :00:03.Heathrow but I would prefer the proposal of a Heathrow hub,

:00:04. > :00:08.sequential runways, to the north of 2079, I would prefer that because it

:00:09. > :00:13.would be less intrusive. I am strongly supportive of a second

:00:14. > :00:16.runway at Gatwick and it was nonsense in 1979 when it was ruled

:00:17. > :00:21.out for 40 years that there should be another runway at Gatwick. We

:00:22. > :00:24.should not constrain future generations in the way they were

:00:25. > :00:30.constrained to stop Heathrow is important and that is what this

:00:31. > :00:37.commission has found it yet paragraph two, it says Heathrow's

:00:38. > :00:43.network overshadows any other UK airport with 84% of scheduled long

:00:44. > :00:48.haul flights not being available anywhere else in the London airport

:00:49. > :00:52.system. There you have it in one sentence. The key importance of

:00:53. > :01:00.Heathrow and why we should be backing it. 78% is the number of

:01:01. > :01:09.long haul flights out of Heathrow, as well as 25% of our exports. It is

:01:10. > :01:15.hugely important. Paragraph three, the committee reports or so the

:01:16. > :01:24.negative impact that a decision not to proceed with the third runway

:01:25. > :01:28.would have on the local economy and wider economy, which they estimate

:01:29. > :01:40.over 60 years, long time, I accept, to be between 21 billion, and

:01:41. > :01:43.30-45,000,000,000. One does not need to query those figures but to

:01:44. > :01:49.recognise that they are substantial figures and reflect the importance

:01:50. > :01:55.of Heathrow. I give way. Would he agree that Heathrow is absolutely

:01:56. > :02:00.vital to areas such as mine, Amersham, Buckinghamshire, where we

:02:01. > :02:04.have over 700 companies headquartered in the region because

:02:05. > :02:08.of the proximity to Heathrow, and my constituents, lanky, would rather

:02:09. > :02:16.see a Heathrow expansion, which would benefit them economically,

:02:17. > :02:24.rather than the benefits building of HS2, which does nothing! I have to

:02:25. > :02:33.disappoint you and say I am also in favour of HS2. I will explain why in

:02:34. > :02:37.a moment. As he took my job in the Ministry of Defence, I will give way

:02:38. > :02:46.to him. I am grateful. On the subject of who benefits, as he

:02:47. > :02:52.studied the awful maps on pages 163 and 164 which shows the economic

:02:53. > :02:57.benefit, a choice between Heathrow and Gatwick, it is a no-brainer, it

:02:58. > :03:02.is Heathrow. The West Midlands, Wales and the West country will

:03:03. > :03:07.benefit from Heathrow and the South East will predominantly in a

:03:08. > :03:15.Gatwick. Since he is a West Country men, I know he will double his

:03:16. > :03:20.support for his choice, and no-brainer. You make a good point.

:03:21. > :03:28.There is no doubt, the location of Heathrow was designed to be in the

:03:29. > :03:36.most propitious place to maximise the value of placing an airport near

:03:37. > :03:39.to London. As one who flew out of Heathrow within 12 months of it

:03:40. > :03:44.having been opened, I have used Heathrow all my life and there is no

:03:45. > :03:48.doubt that that airport was ground-breaking at the time it was

:03:49. > :03:54.created. It was the first airport in the world to have two parallel

:03:55. > :04:03.runways, six parallel runways, but now down to two because aircraft

:04:04. > :04:06.cannot cope with the crosswinds. It was a serious innovation and it is

:04:07. > :04:13.now lagging behind, and the commission has said that failure to

:04:14. > :04:17.address the problem will have a negative impact on the wider economy

:04:18. > :04:24.through creating barriers to trade, investment, tourism, and adversely

:04:25. > :04:27.affecting employment, is the Right Honourable member for tooting said.

:04:28. > :04:37.So there is an economic case that is overwhelming. My honourable friend

:04:38. > :04:42.for Twickenham, clearly postage -- clearly her constituents are

:04:43. > :04:56.aggrieved. I was a counsellor in Chiswick, and I can say to her that

:04:57. > :05:04.I am about 3-400 yards north of the extended runway, and so I see the

:05:05. > :05:07.aeroplanes on a daily basis, and if you choose to live in Twickenham,

:05:08. > :05:12.you have to take into account the airport which was there a long time

:05:13. > :05:20.before you chose to go and live in Twickenham, and the same applies in

:05:21. > :05:28.Richmond. A great man though my honourable friend for Richmond Park

:05:29. > :05:36.is, I look forward to seeing the next Mayor of London! I find it is

:05:37. > :05:41.imperative that we recognise that of all the boroughs that have been

:05:42. > :05:45.consulted, the only borough where the majority of those responding are

:05:46. > :05:51.against Heathrow were in his own borough. Everywhere else they found

:05:52. > :05:57.in favour, a majority found in favour of continuing Heathrow's

:05:58. > :06:03.importance to the community, and therefore, the third runway. So, I

:06:04. > :06:12.believe that local opinion is important. Aerospace, aviation is

:06:13. > :06:21.becoming much more... Of course I will give way. The poll is the only

:06:22. > :06:25.poll that reveals most people are in favour of Heathrow expansion but you

:06:26. > :06:31.will not be surprised to hear that it was conducted by Heathrow! It

:06:32. > :06:37.must be very authoritative! There is an imposition but as I say, those

:06:38. > :06:45.who live there choose to live there, and for many of them, including many

:06:46. > :06:51.of us in The Chamber, the proximity... Eye went Kuwait but I

:06:52. > :06:58.know you represent me in Chiswick. -- I won't give way. She is not as

:06:59. > :07:05.good as her predecessor! So I cannot give way! People knew what to expect

:07:06. > :07:08.and those of us in this House have the benefit of being close to

:07:09. > :07:14.Heathrow as I found the other day when I left my wallet behind when I

:07:15. > :07:23.left for Heathrow so I went back and still got my plane to Edinburgh! I

:07:24. > :07:36.represent Farmborough which has the most prestigious airport, run by

:07:37. > :07:39.Tag, and provides for the business committee and takes a lot of load of

:07:40. > :07:44.Heathrow and Gatwick, and they will continue to do that, divided they

:07:45. > :07:51.are not impaired by the Ministry of Defence. To conclude, we are the

:07:52. > :07:55.beneficiaries of the Victorians' vision who built great schemes of

:07:56. > :07:59.which we are still beneficiaries of, this building being one of them.

:08:00. > :08:07.Since then, we have been subjected to a lack of vision and the

:08:08. > :08:13.paralysis. I saw a map produced in 1935 for an orbital road around

:08:14. > :08:19.London. 1935, but it took 50 years. We cannot go on like this. The

:08:20. > :08:28.commission has given us a conference of analysis and an answer, we need

:08:29. > :08:34.to get on with it now. -- a comprehensive analysis. Thank you to

:08:35. > :08:37.my honourable friend for Aldershot and my constituents but I disagree

:08:38. > :08:45.with you profoundly. No ifs, no buts, no third runway at Heathrow.

:08:46. > :08:56.Order! Don't disagree with the chair, but you cannot disagree with

:08:57. > :09:00.that share -- chair. My sincere apologies, I am still getting used

:09:01. > :09:06.to the conventions of this place. No ifs, no buts, no third runway at

:09:07. > :09:09.Heathrow, what happens to be Prime Minister's decisive statements made

:09:10. > :09:13.prior to the 2010 election? Six years later, on the eve of

:09:14. > :09:17.announcements, that could mean that the Prime Minister gives the third

:09:18. > :09:28.runway the green light, a decision that would be devastating to my

:09:29. > :09:35.constituency, have irreversible consequences. The Heathrow option is

:09:36. > :09:38.the only one of the three deliverable options in the report

:09:39. > :09:43.that is recommended, and it is recommended through flawed economic

:09:44. > :09:46.assessment of their own figures. Before I go further, I would like to

:09:47. > :09:59.thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate

:10:00. > :10:02.and four also helping me. -- for. Heathrow should be better, not

:10:03. > :10:08.bigger. I recognised the local and national benefit for the economy

:10:09. > :10:14.now. I propose expansion there because I want to see no increase in

:10:15. > :10:20.noise and pollution that the airport sees already. I want to work with

:10:21. > :10:26.the airport to reduce those impacts. Heathrow airports Limited may be

:10:27. > :10:30.winning on the amount spent on PR, but this Parliament has a duty to

:10:31. > :10:37.assess what is the optimum solution and not be swayed by Mark Reading

:10:38. > :10:41.rhetoric. -- marking rhetoric. How long can we assess this? The debate

:10:42. > :10:50.has been running for 20 years. How long do we debate this in a

:10:51. > :10:57.theological way? There will be a conclusion if the Prime Minister

:10:58. > :11:01.considers the less costly Gatwick. Those who are impacted by runway

:11:02. > :11:10.three do not know what the impact will be. British airway is no longer

:11:11. > :11:17.supports Heathrow Airport's runway three. The chief executive of

:11:18. > :11:21.British airways has expressed serious concerns of how a third

:11:22. > :11:26.runway will be funded. The input structure is not fit for purpose,

:11:27. > :11:29.the price tag is excessive and cannot be justified on any basis. We

:11:30. > :11:34.did not ask for it and we're not paying for it. Businesses have said

:11:35. > :11:40.time and time again that a quick decision is needed. Businesses want

:11:41. > :11:48.to get to and from London and two markets. Heathrow Airport is not

:11:49. > :11:52.often top of the agenda. -- to. Businesses also want to get to other

:11:53. > :11:56.parts of UK, not just London. Why do people in the South East not

:11:57. > :12:03.understand that Gatwick is much more difficult to get to ban a brilliant

:12:04. > :12:14.regional airport like Birmingham! To our drive for 35 million people in

:12:15. > :12:20.the UK. Birmingham, with HS2, can become Heathrow's third runway! I

:12:21. > :12:26.thank my honourable friend, and there are other solutions. I am

:12:27. > :12:29.concentrating on the subject of the debate which is the airports

:12:30. > :12:32.commission which did recommend one of the three options is being

:12:33. > :12:38.Gatwick for additional runway in London and the South East. -- an

:12:39. > :12:44.additional runway. For residents, there will be 40% more flights

:12:45. > :12:49.overhead, 50% of London will be in a high noise area, more air pollution,

:12:50. > :12:53.less respite for those areas who currently benefit from respite, more

:12:54. > :12:57.traffic congestion, little chance of getting or keeping a night flight,

:12:58. > :13:03.more pressure for further expansion such as the possibility of a fourth

:13:04. > :13:07.runway. Announcing a third runway will start a long and drawn-out

:13:08. > :13:13.process. Legal challenges a real possibility. This will not be a

:13:14. > :13:17.quick process. I would like to cover what Heathrow means to my

:13:18. > :13:22.constituents with two runways. My constituency lies between Heathrow

:13:23. > :13:28.and London, beneath the Landing parts or planes approaching over

:13:29. > :13:34.landing. Airport has been with us for 70 years and provides jobs and

:13:35. > :13:37.stimulus for a wide area. It also brings noise, traffic, congestion

:13:38. > :13:41.and pollution. I have never advocated that it be closed or

:13:42. > :13:48.reduced incapacity and I don't like being accused of being so. A real

:13:49. > :13:53.threat to Heathrow's future would be the Mayor of London's forma proposal

:13:54. > :13:59.for a Thames estuary airport. When the airport is operating on a

:14:00. > :14:05.westerly operation, 70% of the time, planes approach directly overhead

:14:06. > :14:13.every 60 to 90 seconds, they are locked into a final approach so

:14:14. > :14:17.there is no variation for those who work or live beneath the plane.

:14:18. > :14:23.After constituents live beneath this flight path and the rest will be if

:14:24. > :14:28.a third runway goes ahead. The noise starts for 15 AM with an average of

:14:29. > :14:33.16 flights before 6am. Then it is continuous for an hour and then from

:14:34. > :14:37.7am to 3pm, those under the approach of runway get continuous noise

:14:38. > :14:44.before the planes switches to the other runway, before the airport

:14:45. > :14:55.closes at 11:30pm. It is not just my constituents. There are 700,000 more

:14:56. > :15:01.people in London and this out these -- and South East are affected every

:15:02. > :15:08.day. More are tips by aircraft noise than at any other airport. -- more

:15:09. > :15:12.are affected. A third runway will mean a 40% increase in flights, and

:15:13. > :15:20.a third runway will mean the rest of the area will be included in a high

:15:21. > :15:25.noise area. So when we share the joy of continuous overflying for ten

:15:26. > :15:30.hours a day. Air quality is in breach of EU limits and will be

:15:31. > :15:38.worse, as will traffic congestion. Pressure on housing, pressure on

:15:39. > :15:46.jobs and public services. For some, a third runway will mean the loss of

:15:47. > :15:50.their homes. Yesterday I met a woman who has lived here for 40 years. 90

:15:51. > :15:55.minutes after the Davis commission was published, she and her husband

:15:56. > :15:59.received a hand-delivered letter telling them about the arrangements

:16:00. > :16:10.to be made for buying them home by pro-Assad would not buy a flat in

:16:11. > :16:13.West London. Her husband then fell ill and passed away. The member for

:16:14. > :16:20.Hayes and Harlington is unable to speak in this debate but she asked

:16:21. > :16:24.me to make it clear that 4000 residents will have to leave their

:16:25. > :16:31.homes if Heathrow expands. She said we cannot replace a community. The

:16:32. > :16:35.main reasons to oppose expansion are noise, air quality, the business

:16:36. > :16:44.case that does not stack up, floors and economic arguments in the Davis

:16:45. > :16:52.commission case. Heathrow runway three is the most costly, most

:16:53. > :16:56.complex of the three schemes and carries the highest risk. It is

:16:57. > :17:03.predicated on condition that the airport operator is not prepared to

:17:04. > :17:08.concede. I am also grateful for the opportunity to have this debate. It

:17:09. > :17:12.is the first opportunity to discuss Davis, although it is already

:17:13. > :17:15.showing that it gives us an early opportunity of how colleagues are

:17:16. > :17:18.going to be disobliging to one another in the course of the

:17:19. > :17:22.argument is that they deploy. My interest goes back a long way, as

:17:23. > :17:27.the official report will bear witness. I often think that when I

:17:28. > :17:31.die, the word Stansted will be engraved on my heart. I must declare

:17:32. > :17:35.that interest but it was an interest formed when I was the honourable

:17:36. > :17:40.member for Middleton and Prestwich in Greater Manchester, and it was at

:17:41. > :17:46.the time of another report into airport policy. I came to the

:17:47. > :17:50.conclusion from that that no inland side should be chosen for London's

:17:51. > :17:53.third airport. It did not even recommend Stansted but I saw all of

:17:54. > :18:01.the other side and none of them was correct as far as I was concerned.

:18:02. > :18:04.My stance was reinforced by BAA, the statutory authority at the time,

:18:05. > :18:11.because there was already a second airport in the place of Gatwick, and

:18:12. > :18:15.they concluded the infamous pact with West Sussex County Council not

:18:16. > :18:21.to have a second runway within 40 years. To my mind, that was the

:18:22. > :18:28.equivalent in aviation of the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact. BAA also

:18:29. > :18:33.denied that anything could be done about the works that sit to the West

:18:34. > :18:38.of Heathrow. I was told that I was a child, I didn't understand, it was

:18:39. > :18:42.too costly and so on. We now know that is where terminal five stands.

:18:43. > :18:50.Davis comes out in favour of a hub airport and I am prepared on balance

:18:51. > :18:55.to accept that is a current need. It backs Heathrow in support of that

:18:56. > :18:59.concept, but then it stops short of its own logic by ruling out a

:19:00. > :19:04.fourth. Most of the airlines would say that you cannot have a hub

:19:05. > :19:09.airport that can be limited to three runways. Look at what the

:19:10. > :19:13.competition is doing. All of the factors which have persuaded Davis

:19:14. > :19:17.to recommend a third are going to recur in time. Whether it is

:19:18. > :19:26.connectivity from our provincial airports or the need for more long

:19:27. > :19:31.haul routes to be established. Using this tactic of ruling out a fourth

:19:32. > :19:36.runway is a repeat of what has happened on so many occasions in the

:19:37. > :19:43.past. It is a worthless condition, I say to the House. The infamous

:19:44. > :19:48.letters of Sir John Egan in 1995 when terminal five was finally being

:19:49. > :19:54.discussed, I quote, we do not want and nor shall we seek an additional

:19:55. > :19:58.runway. We called on the inspector to recommend that subject to

:19:59. > :20:03.permission being given for terminal five, and additional Heathrow runway

:20:04. > :20:06.should be rolled out for ever. And when BAA appeared in front of the

:20:07. > :20:11.select committee on transport, on which I was honoured to serve in the

:20:12. > :20:16.1990s, we put it to the representatives of B a a time and

:20:17. > :20:22.again, but if we recommend in addition to terminal five that you

:20:23. > :20:26.have a third runway, they denied it and denied it. You cannot believe

:20:27. > :20:32.people when they try to bind the future in that way. My constituents

:20:33. > :20:40.now at Saffron Walden are also familiar with the tactic. In 1983

:20:41. > :20:44.service. There are compelling reasons which are now manifest as to

:20:45. > :20:48.why a second runway at Stansted should not be developed under any

:20:49. > :20:51.circumstances and Government should make an unequivocal declaration of

:20:52. > :20:57.intention that a second main runway will not be built. He later

:20:58. > :21:01.described the second runway as an environmental catastrophe. So the

:21:02. > :21:04.Government made that declaration and within seven years not a different

:21:05. > :21:09.Government, the same Government, had already begun to water it down.

:21:10. > :21:14.Davis himself in fact has said that in the longer term future he sees no

:21:15. > :21:20.difficulty about a second runway at Stansted. It completely devalues any

:21:21. > :21:24.undertaking that is given. There are other weaknesses, as honourable

:21:25. > :21:29.members have said, about the Davis report in support of a third runway

:21:30. > :21:33.at Heathrow. As I read the report, the impression grew on me that every

:21:34. > :21:38.consideration was being bent towards the recommendation on which the

:21:39. > :21:41.commission had already decided. Air-quality has been mentioned,

:21:42. > :21:48.surface transport, the cost of that, regional airport connections, will

:21:49. > :21:51.there only be many and for how long? I also mentioned the practicality of

:21:52. > :21:57.ruling out early arrivals at the so-called hub airports because of

:21:58. > :22:02.the effect on connectivity if it is to be effective in the future. I

:22:03. > :22:05.also question how many long haul routes will be created. This

:22:06. > :22:10.accumulation of doubts could affect the timing and financing of any

:22:11. > :22:13.third runway at Heathrow. Some people say that competition between

:22:14. > :22:17.airports is unrealistic. I am not sure I agree with that. There is no

:22:18. > :22:21.doubt that Gatwick and Stansted under their new owners have become

:22:22. > :22:24.better places in which to operate. The House will understand that I

:22:25. > :22:29.would be inconsistent with the view I formed a long time ago if I

:22:30. > :22:37.thought Northwest Essex was an admirable site foray four runway

:22:38. > :22:42.airport. I am sorry if this disappoints the noble lord Sugar. I

:22:43. > :22:46.still believe the Government was right in 1970 and my noble friend is

:22:47. > :22:52.right in saying the long-term answer lies in the estuaries. Having a

:22:53. > :22:56.decent airport for a world-class city, London needs to start again.

:22:57. > :22:59.The British have built excellent airport in other parts of the world

:23:00. > :23:07.but not here. We should think in bigger terms and we should also

:23:08. > :23:13.think of the northern powerhouse. Before I start, can I apologise to

:23:14. > :23:15.members in the chamber that the honourable member for Aldershot will

:23:16. > :23:21.not be present for summing up because of an engagement which was

:23:22. > :23:25.postponed because of the Paris atrocities. I hope that is OK with

:23:26. > :23:33.everybody present. The issue of an additional runway in the South East

:23:34. > :23:37.of England would not be appropriate if you take my inbox as a measuring

:23:38. > :23:44.tour. I have had more responses to this than on Syrian military action.

:23:45. > :23:49.London and the South East has had quite enough infrastructure

:23:50. > :23:53.investment. We should attract more to the regions and not to London. I

:23:54. > :23:55.have something to do with that argument but we have to deal with

:23:56. > :24:00.the reality of a straight choice between Heathrow and Gatwick. The

:24:01. > :24:05.SNP currently remains neutral on this matter. The party and the

:24:06. > :24:13.Scottish Government have strong views on the benefits to Scotland on

:24:14. > :24:16.better hub capacity. Scotland is on the periphery of Europe and so

:24:17. > :24:21.travel is not a luxury but an essential element of business and

:24:22. > :24:28.family life. The ability of Scotland to maintain and increase its global

:24:29. > :24:32.competitiveness is dependent on emerging markets and we are

:24:33. > :24:36.dependent on London for a lot of this connectivity. Recent research

:24:37. > :24:41.taken by the Civil Aviation Authority confirmed the extent to

:24:42. > :24:53.which Scotland is dependent on hub airports. Glasgow airport is pivotal

:24:54. > :24:59.to its future success. It sustains 7000 jobs and contributes ?200

:25:00. > :25:02.million to the national economy and carried 7.7 million passengers in

:25:03. > :25:10.2014 and is currently UK airport of the year. Glasgow, along with

:25:11. > :25:17.Aberdeen and Inverness airports, the Chambers of Commerce, and CBI

:25:18. > :25:25.Scotland also support Glasgow and a sister airport at Gatwick. The most

:25:26. > :25:31.popular route is the British Airways service between Glasgow and

:25:32. > :25:37.Heathrow. It should be noticed that Glasgow also finds Gatwick hugely

:25:38. > :25:42.important. 49% of the passengers flying to Glasgow from Heathrow were

:25:43. > :25:47.transfers. They started their journey outside the UK. 26% of

:25:48. > :25:51.Gatwick passengers were transfers. In this global AIDS connectivity is

:25:52. > :25:55.vital. Connectivity is dominated by Heathrow. It is the UK's only hub

:25:56. > :26:03.and has the greatest number of onward connections. Put simply it

:26:04. > :26:09.serves destinations that cannot be reached from any other UK airport.

:26:10. > :26:13.This decision is important to Scotland, as important as it is to

:26:14. > :26:19.London and the South East. It is not clear how the House will vote on

:26:20. > :26:24.this issue. When giving evidence to the public, the Leader of the House

:26:25. > :26:27.said if we have a vote on where to build, Heathrow or Gatwick, within

:26:28. > :26:33.the UK Parliament, it will be carried only with the wishes of the

:26:34. > :26:37.UK Parliament, but it will depend on the nature of the vehicle. A vote is

:26:38. > :26:43.only in principle and not legislation. If it is a piece of

:26:44. > :26:47.legislation and it is about detailed planning, it will be for the Speaker

:26:48. > :26:54.to decide if it is an early motion or not. The possibility of Scottish

:26:55. > :26:59.MPs not thinking the matter is important was met with incredulity.

:27:00. > :27:13.It is absolutely preposterous, like say Scottish MPs should only vote on

:27:14. > :27:18.things based in Scotland. Heathrow is a UK asset. It is a major hub for

:27:19. > :27:33.connect UK to as many international as possible. To say it is

:27:34. > :27:38.English-only is complete nonsense. I hope I have made two things

:27:39. > :27:42.abundantly clear. The connectivity that an additional runway would

:27:43. > :27:46.provide is vital to Scotland and its potential. Secondly, if the House is

:27:47. > :27:51.asked to make a decision on the issue it should not be certified as

:27:52. > :27:58.England only. We should be allowed full voting rights on such an

:27:59. > :28:01.important issue. I wanted to congratulate my friend the

:28:02. > :28:10.honourable member for Twickenham and for her promotion of meteorite

:28:11. > :28:14.honourable member -- of me to write honourable member. Given the looming

:28:15. > :28:20.decision on Heathrow, that is extremely unlikely! Whenever there

:28:21. > :28:24.is a big infrastructure projects it always causes pain. Then the game

:28:25. > :28:31.justifies that pain. Clearly that is the view of those people who support

:28:32. > :28:33.Heathrow expansion but I urge them to look properly at the costs and

:28:34. > :28:38.benefits of this project before taking a view because they speak for

:28:39. > :28:43.themselves. I want to briefly revisit some of the costs. I will be

:28:44. > :28:49.brief. Noise, the principal concern. Heathrow is already Europe's biggest

:28:50. > :28:58.noise polluted by far. 720,000 people are affected. A third runway

:28:59. > :29:03.would increase flights from 740,000 a year, affecting 1 million people,

:29:04. > :29:12.and people would lose half the respite that they treasure from

:29:13. > :29:15.eight hours to four hours. Expanding Heathrow with a third runway merely

:29:16. > :29:20.tells us that Heathrow is a company that is used to getting its way with

:29:21. > :29:24.Government and so no longer needs to even appear reasonable.

:29:25. > :29:31.The government have not analysed the impact of noise on residents, I

:29:32. > :29:35.don't and they have seen the flight path but that may be clarified

:29:36. > :29:39.later. The pollution. With two runways, air pollution around he

:29:40. > :29:44.wrote massively exceeds legal limits, and the runway will see 75

:29:45. > :29:51.million more people using the air, going back woods and forward. TfL

:29:52. > :29:56.believes an extra runway would add 25 million more lorry and car

:29:57. > :30:02.journeys. -- backwards. Nobody in the world believes you can reconcile

:30:03. > :30:11.Heathrow expansion with aspirations relating to Eric quality. -- air

:30:12. > :30:16.quality. It is hard to know how to respond to the assertion. Howard

:30:17. > :30:22.Davies himself has begun to nuance his position on the back of the VW

:30:23. > :30:26.scandal, on the basis that the data has been revealed to be entirely

:30:27. > :30:31.fraudulent. He told a committee of MPs, I do think the government will

:30:32. > :30:35.need to satisfy itself on this point. Clearly some things have

:30:36. > :30:43.moved on but the government will need to satisfy that this can be

:30:44. > :30:48.done safely. But financial costs. It is an unlikely new ally, Willie

:30:49. > :30:52.Walsh, who has described the cost is prohibitive and make the project

:30:53. > :31:01.undeliverable. Surface transport costs alone, it is obvious he is

:31:02. > :31:05.right. Had you accommodate 25 extra -- 25 million extra car journeys a

:31:06. > :31:12.year? Heathrow puts the cost at ?1 billion. TfL puts the cost at ?20

:31:13. > :31:17.billion. It goes on and on and on. That is some of the downside, and it

:31:18. > :31:25.is big. You might accept that downside if the economic case was

:31:26. > :31:32.overwhelming, but the Howard Davies report makes the economic case for

:31:33. > :31:36.us. There is a giant gap between the report itself and the conclusion it

:31:37. > :31:40.reaches. It is like Howard Davies began with a conclusion, spent 20

:31:41. > :31:46.billion quid cobbling together and analysis and data and information

:31:47. > :31:49.and then came to the same old conclusion at the end of the report.

:31:50. > :31:56.He tells us in the report that in the most optimistic scenario, an

:31:57. > :32:00.expanded Heathrow will give us 12 additional international routes, and

:32:01. > :32:05.much of the additional activity, if not all, would be at the expense of

:32:06. > :32:12.neighbouring airports like sand bed and Gatwick. -- Stansted. In other

:32:13. > :32:18.words, we would not be creating new activity, we would centralise

:32:19. > :32:25.existing activity, recreating a monopoly. It is a pitifully small

:32:26. > :32:31.outside, and more so when you compare it with the dose of pain

:32:32. > :32:34.that Heathrow expansion encompasses. I agree with what you say, including

:32:35. > :32:39.what you say about the airport commission report, but we are where

:32:40. > :32:46.we are, and the choice has to be made. Does he go further than his

:32:47. > :32:52.previous position and support the second runway at gap which? That is

:32:53. > :32:59.the only other credible option on the table. -- Gatwick. I will answer

:33:00. > :33:03.that point but I have to say that the honourable member for tooting

:33:04. > :33:06.seems to ebb and flow with the weather. He says one thing to one

:33:07. > :33:11.audience and another to another audience. His position on Heathrow

:33:12. > :33:20.is as authentic as Donald Trump's Herr!

:33:21. > :33:24.LAUGHTER -- hair. I will answer nevertheless. The alternative to

:33:25. > :33:28.monopoly, which is what is proposed as the first choice of the Howard

:33:29. > :33:33.Davies commission, the alternative is competition. Competition works,

:33:34. > :33:39.you only have to look at Gatwick to know it works. It has opened up

:33:40. > :33:44.routes to places we were told it could not be open. Hanoi, Jakarta.

:33:45. > :33:50.Two routes to China. Competition is the answer. Despite coming down in

:33:51. > :33:54.favour of monopoly, Howard Davies has acknowledged it will stifle

:33:55. > :34:00.growth at other airports. Had we encourage it? We invest in transport

:34:01. > :34:04.links between the three main airports in London, and if and when,

:34:05. > :34:20.as is likely, we have the capacity problem, it bans are not at

:34:21. > :34:29.Heathrow, but in -- we have the capacity problem. Order. We have had

:34:30. > :34:34.a problem with the clock. If the honourable gentleman is about to

:34:35. > :34:40.take in intervention, I calculate that he has one minute and 50

:34:41. > :34:52.seconds including the intervention he is about to take. I have listened

:34:53. > :34:58.to the organisation who came along and spoke and their concerns on the

:34:59. > :35:03.expansion of the Heathrow runway but I don't think any of the questions

:35:04. > :35:10.have been answered. The air monitoring system at Heathrow is

:35:11. > :35:18.totally inadequate. For the record, I agree with the position expressed.

:35:19. > :35:20.This is an issue for the SNP. This is a piece of national

:35:21. > :35:26.infrastructure which requires the consent of the UK. Some colleagues

:35:27. > :35:28.believe we need a giant mega-. Some colleagues will back Heathrow

:35:29. > :35:33.expansion because they think the inadequate third runway will give

:35:34. > :35:39.way to a fourth runway, and people on that basis are going to this

:35:40. > :35:46.halfway route. They should bear in mind what air traffic control of the

:35:47. > :35:52.airport commission -they would veto the construction of a fourth runway

:35:53. > :35:55.on the basis that the West London skies are too crowded and they don't

:35:56. > :36:03.believe it is possible to keep these guys save with a fourth runway. --

:36:04. > :36:08.skies. I would ask them to think again. The skies in that region

:36:09. > :36:13.could not accommodate it. Regardless, I only have 30 seconds.

:36:14. > :36:20.Regardless of the government's decision, I personally don't believe

:36:21. > :36:23.Heathrow expansion will happen. The government decision will not make

:36:24. > :36:27.the slightest bit of difference other than to delay a discussion

:36:28. > :36:30.which has gone for too long. It is not politically deliverable or

:36:31. > :36:35.legally deliverable either. I know that MPs and councillors and

:36:36. > :36:38.countless residents across the very large flight path will make that

:36:39. > :36:47.point for as long as they need to do. Thank you. Excellent speeches,

:36:48. > :36:51.critically by the honourable lady for Twickenham and my honourable

:36:52. > :37:00.friend for Brentwood and Isa with. -- Brentford. -- Isa with. I am

:37:01. > :37:06.opposed to the third runway at Heathrow and I am not personally

:37:07. > :37:09.convinced that there is a case for a third runway in the South East at

:37:10. > :37:14.all. I have suggestions for more sensible way forward. Maximise the

:37:15. > :37:18.use of existing capacity and one way we could do this is by realising

:37:19. > :37:25.that we have a new generation of aircraft types coming in with

:37:26. > :37:33.shorter landing requirements, so there will be more per hour, such as

:37:34. > :37:42.the Boeing Dreamliner, which is more fuel efficient and less polluting.

:37:43. > :37:50.At Stansted there is more capacity and that should be maximised. In my

:37:51. > :37:55.hometown of Luton, Luton airport is due to expand its capacity from 10

:37:56. > :38:03.million to 20 million, and that is welcomed. We are talking about a

:38:04. > :38:05.rail transit link between the station and airport and I'm eating

:38:06. > :38:13.the airport director tomorrow to discuss these matters. -- and I'm

:38:14. > :38:20.meeting. London Luton could become a satellite for Heathrow if there were

:38:21. > :38:25.to be a fast rail link between Luton airport station and Heathrow, and

:38:26. > :38:31.this could go through Cricklewood, and that will be a way forward. It

:38:32. > :38:37.could be a hub satellite. There is a major case is the honourable friend

:38:38. > :38:45.mentioned for making greater use of regional airports. He has mentioned

:38:46. > :38:50.Birmingham. A two hour drive is not going to be effective at serving

:38:51. > :39:00.London, but there are ways of dealing with it and I have spoken

:39:01. > :39:05.about the probability... Am grateful -- I am grateful that he touched on

:39:06. > :39:09.Birmingham Airport. Is he aware that HS2, which is not favoured by every

:39:10. > :39:13.member in this House, will make the journey between Birmingham Airport

:39:14. > :39:19.and Central London 36 minutes. It takes longer from Stansted and

:39:20. > :39:26.possibly from Luton. I have a better is digestion -- I have a better

:39:27. > :39:31.suggestion. My suggestion is for electrifying and upgrading the

:39:32. > :39:37.Birmingham Snow Hill to London line, going through Banbury, and linking

:39:38. > :39:39.to Crossrail, so you can get from Birmingham business district right

:39:40. > :39:43.to Canary Wharf and also to Heathrow. This can be linked

:39:44. > :39:50.directly to Birmingham Airport via Leamington Spa. A one-hour service

:39:51. > :39:54.shuttle between Birmingham Airport and Heathrow Airport could make

:39:55. > :40:01.Birmingham and London Heathrow satellites and hubs for each other.

:40:02. > :40:06.A tremendous boon. One hour from Birmingham to Central London on a

:40:07. > :40:16.modified, electrified line would be a way forward and make redundant the

:40:17. > :40:20.need for HS2. That is my major suggestion but there is also the

:40:21. > :40:26.possibility of other developments in other airports. In the north,

:40:27. > :40:34.Manchester. My suggestion of electrifying that line, you can get

:40:35. > :40:40.direct electrical services as long as we upgrade the Birmingham Snow

:40:41. > :40:46.Hill line through to Heathrow and to Canary Wharf. That is a much more

:40:47. > :40:51.sensible way forward and will benefit the West Midlands, other

:40:52. > :40:55.regions of the country, and it would mean we take some of the pressure

:40:56. > :41:00.off the South East both in terms of aircraft travel and also in terms of

:41:01. > :41:10.economic development and housing as well, I hope. My suggestion, I hope

:41:11. > :41:19.is hopeful. Can I congratulate my honourable friend on securing what

:41:20. > :41:23.is a very important debate. I am delighted because as the Minister

:41:24. > :41:26.for aviation when my honourable friend the Secretary of State set up

:41:27. > :41:31.the Davis commission, I think it is long overdue that we have the

:41:32. > :41:37.opportunity to debate what is a critically important issue. I have

:41:38. > :41:46.to say that I am concerned because we have been discussing, as my

:41:47. > :41:50.honourable friend said, for 50 years now the issue of runways and

:41:51. > :42:02.airports in the vicinity of London and Beyonce, and we have now reached

:42:03. > :42:05.a critical point. -- beyond. We all know if we have used Heathrow,

:42:06. > :42:12.particularly long haul flights, that it is overcrowded and overcapacity.

:42:13. > :42:17.You can easily see that when flying in long haul in the early morning,

:42:18. > :42:22.with the stacking that goes on around London, which is not healthy

:42:23. > :42:29.for landing, and not healthy for connectivity and travel. -- for

:42:30. > :42:36.London. The time has come to stop talking and to come up with a viable

:42:37. > :42:41.solution because I also think it is in our national interests and in our

:42:42. > :42:49.economic interests to continue to ensure that it is in written that

:42:50. > :42:55.the hub airport for Western Europe is and remains, and heaven knows,

:42:56. > :43:03.Heathrow is under immense pressure from Frankfurt, from Amsterdam, from

:43:04. > :43:08.Paris, and from even possibly Madrid to try and poach that position away

:43:09. > :43:13.from us. It is not in our interest economically and not in our interest

:43:14. > :43:19.for those people who travel outside the UK from Heathrow or Gatwick.

:43:20. > :43:24.There have been proposals... Yes I will give way. With reference to his

:43:25. > :43:28.point about Heathrow being congested, it is partly because

:43:29. > :43:35.Heathrow is operating its two runways in alternate modes. If it

:43:36. > :43:38.were not, and local people don't want change, but if it were not, it

:43:39. > :43:50.would get 216 extra slot per day. I fully appreciate what he has just

:43:51. > :43:55.said but the critical thing was that local people do not want it. The

:43:56. > :44:01.pressures that there have been on the operations of Heathrow over many

:44:02. > :44:09.years has been paramount. Some people have suggested that there

:44:10. > :44:14.should be in effect a joint hub for the UK based on Heathrow and

:44:15. > :44:19.Gatwick. That has been tried, it was tried in the 80s, it was tried in

:44:20. > :44:26.the 90s and it was a failure not least because the major airlines

:44:27. > :44:32.wanted the slots at London Heathrow. There is of course the alternative

:44:33. > :44:38.that some of my honourable friend 's argued that it should be Gatwick.

:44:39. > :44:44.The day this report with an independent report, it looked in

:44:45. > :44:50.tremendous detail at all the alternatives including my honourable

:44:51. > :44:59.friend the Mayor of London's proposal which I have to say I was

:45:00. > :45:06.not in favour of. But they have as an independent body carrying out

:45:07. > :45:11.their research, their analysis have come up with conclusions in what I

:45:12. > :45:18.believe is a formidable document. Quite clearly, that will not find

:45:19. > :45:21.favour with people particularly in parts of central London and

:45:22. > :45:27.south-west London. Though I will add one caveat, given the sheer number

:45:28. > :45:33.of jobs that are dependent on Heathrow as a thriving airport, not

:45:34. > :45:43.simply in London but also in the Home Counties and beyond, I do find

:45:44. > :45:46.it strange in many ways that their readers a potentially silent

:45:47. > :45:52.majority of people who work there are reliant for their livelihoods on

:45:53. > :46:02.Heathrow who remain silent and do not make their case, for what I

:46:03. > :46:08.assume... I think it would be useful to hear more on both sides but what

:46:09. > :46:14.is most important is that we finally put to bed this constant bickering,

:46:15. > :46:19.this constant arguing and that we come up with a coherent proposal

:46:20. > :46:24.that we can move forward with to protect our position as a supplier

:46:25. > :46:30.of the hub airport for Western Europe. I also think we should look

:46:31. > :46:33.and I accept this is as controversial but would need more

:46:34. > :46:39.parties support, we need to look again at the way in which the

:46:40. > :46:44.planning procedures operate in this country for major projects. It is

:46:45. > :46:53.quite crazy that it takes so long to build a project and so as not to

:46:54. > :46:57.antagonise too many of my honourable friend is today, let's exclude the

:46:58. > :47:02.airport out of the equation, let's take a chess two, terminal five at

:47:03. > :47:08.Heathrow, let's take a few of the other projects that are beneficial

:47:09. > :47:12.to the economy. The amount of time it takes, the procedures you have to

:47:13. > :47:20.far around with to get from a to B to C which is the eventual opening

:47:21. > :47:26.is wrong and we need to reform them, not to cut the way people's

:47:27. > :47:30.writes to object and have their concerns expressed but to make sure

:47:31. > :47:36.they cannot be used to gerrymander the process to delay them and delay

:47:37. > :47:43.them and delay them. To what it is worth, as I am coming to the end of

:47:44. > :47:48.my speech, from a purely personal point of view, I think that Heathrow

:47:49. > :47:54.is the compelling case for the expanded airport to meet our

:47:55. > :48:02.capacity problems and to ensure we have a thriving and successful

:48:03. > :48:09.aviation industry in this country. I will begin by briefly reflecting the

:48:10. > :48:12.views of my honourable friend for Hayes and Hollington, not only

:48:13. > :48:18.because he is unable to take part in this debate but because he has been

:48:19. > :48:23.the foremost opponent of Heathrow expansion over many years. He says

:48:24. > :48:27.that at the southern tip of his constituency is an 11th century

:48:28. > :48:33.village which contains the oldest barn in England, it has an ancient

:48:34. > :48:37.church and is the home to thousands of people and that many of these

:48:38. > :48:41.homes would have stood for a thousand years and would be

:48:42. > :48:45.demolished if a third runway is stored at Heathrow. Heathrow would

:48:46. > :48:53.require 783 properties in the village but it also said it will buy

:48:54. > :48:59.homes in the neighbouring villages. In total up to 4000 homes might need

:49:00. > :49:02.to be acquired. There are parts of his constituency where air pollution

:49:03. > :49:06.levels exceed the EU limits and where a lot of the pollution and

:49:07. > :49:11.while a lot of the pollution comes from motor do cause, Heathrow is

:49:12. > :49:15.being disingenuous in stating it will bring in a quarter of a million

:49:16. > :49:24.more planes eg and expect pollution levels to fall. Their belief is one

:49:25. > :49:28.of faith. Of course the impact of a third runway will not just be felt

:49:29. > :49:35.in Hayes and Hollington but right across London and the Home Counties.

:49:36. > :49:41.The noise figures are well-known, over 725,000 people are impacted by

:49:42. > :49:45.noise from Heathrow, 28% of all people disturbed by aircraft noise

:49:46. > :49:48.across Europe. Heathrow are stretching credibility to claim the

:49:49. > :49:53.number of people affected by noise windfall with a quarter of a million

:49:54. > :49:58.extra planes using the third runway yet that is what they say. The

:49:59. > :50:01.economics of a third one way are equally questionable. The airports

:50:02. > :50:09.commission could not make up its mind on the figures. A third runway

:50:10. > :50:13.would benefit plc to the tune of billions but it's own advisers said

:50:14. > :50:16.there were a number of difficulties with the model used to get that

:50:17. > :50:23.figure using traditional tested modelling methods, a third runway

:50:24. > :50:27.would bring benefits of 69 billion but is the cost of this benefits

:50:28. > :50:36.such as noise and the cost of delivering the runway which mean

:50:37. > :50:43.more. Given that cost of a third runway as well as damage to the

:50:44. > :50:47.climate, my plea to government is not to be swayed by advertising

:50:48. > :50:51.slogans and self-interested voices but to recognise the economy of the

:50:52. > :50:57.UK is not dependent upon this destructive third runway at

:50:58. > :51:02.Heathrow. Having said that, the time for talking is now over. We were

:51:03. > :51:06.promised recently that an announcement as to which of the

:51:07. > :51:11.choices of Gatwick or Heathrow would be made by the government before

:51:12. > :51:16.Christmas and I'm sure the Minister can confirm that. I support the

:51:17. > :51:24.Gatwick option, I think we have to make that choice and I'm sorry that

:51:25. > :51:28.the member has chosen this rather furtive answer to which he gave to

:51:29. > :51:36.my crush on. I think his bid for high office has... We have to back

:51:37. > :51:42.Gatwick because that is the only other choice available but it is

:51:43. > :51:48.also necessary as a driver of the south-west economy, but I say also

:51:49. > :51:54.that my honourable friend was pleading the case for Birmingham.

:51:55. > :51:59.For my constituents, when HS2 is built, it will be quicker to get to

:52:00. > :52:09.Birmingham Airport than the Piccadilly line to Heathrow. There

:52:10. > :52:12.are other options. HS2 will stop at Euston which is nowhere near

:52:13. > :52:18.Heathrow. My scheme would provide for a direct running between

:52:19. > :52:25.Birmingham and Heathrow and make Birmingham and Heathrow effectively

:52:26. > :52:30.partner airports. Old folk in my constituency will be the major

:52:31. > :52:36.interchange and that will be 31 minutes from Birmingham Airport and

:52:37. > :52:41.I welcome and support that scheme. Heathrow has ruled the roost for too

:52:42. > :52:45.long. Of course it could keep Stansted and Gatwick quiet when it

:52:46. > :52:49.owned those airports and it also seem to manage to mesmerise

:52:50. > :52:54.successive governments. It was only when my honourable friend for

:52:55. > :52:58.Doncaster North became part of the Labour Party that the policy changed

:52:59. > :53:06.and we hoped that when the Prime Minister said if no buts it would

:53:07. > :53:10.change in the Conservative Party as well. I don't believe that was the

:53:11. > :53:19.case and I believe the commission was set up under a false prospectus.

:53:20. > :53:27.One only has to look in the change reference. The inevitable conclusion

:53:28. > :53:33.to deliberately delayed over a period of time to take us beyond the

:53:34. > :53:38.date of the election only came to where we are now. I do crew and

:53:39. > :53:41.interest that a third runway has proposed would be directly over

:53:42. > :53:46.Hammersmith and Shepherd's Bush and would subject communities in that

:53:47. > :53:53.area to sustained aircraft noise. But the effect is Jim attic across

:53:54. > :53:59.the whole of West London and it is unnecessary. -- dramatic. I would

:54:00. > :54:05.praise the work Hammersmith and Fulham Council have done in many

:54:06. > :54:12.years opposing this. But I would also praised them for having set up

:54:13. > :54:18.an independent residence commission, which took evidence from

:54:19. > :54:23.all parties and came to these conclusions. Yes, it said that we

:54:24. > :54:28.would enjoy economic benefits and yes there would be an increased

:54:29. > :54:33.choice of flights and destinations for residents and visitors, but the

:54:34. > :54:37.additional flights overhead and the additional noise, additional

:54:38. > :54:42.congestion, traffic, the effects on her quality, the failure to mitigate

:54:43. > :54:47.noise properly, the safety concerns and the effect of all on residents

:54:48. > :54:52.health and quality of life are price is not worth paying. No other

:54:53. > :54:59.country would think of subjecting millions of people across west

:55:00. > :55:04.London, 2 million people across the most densely populated part of this

:55:05. > :55:07.country to that intolerable burden. This is insanity particularly when

:55:08. > :55:11.there is an acceptable alternative and I hope the government makes its

:55:12. > :55:19.decision and it will see sense on this matter. Of course there are

:55:20. > :55:25.members on all sides of this house who have constituency interests in

:55:26. > :55:30.this matter. So far we have heard from honourable members who have

:55:31. > :55:35.concerns about the expansion of Heathrow. I also have constituency

:55:36. > :55:43.concerns but about the expansion of Gatwick. Many of those sound similar

:55:44. > :55:47.to those concerns raised by my honourable friends and others, but

:55:48. > :55:53.those concerns must be beside the point. I think we should all agree

:55:54. > :55:57.that we need to take this decision in the national interest for reasons

:55:58. > :56:04.that were very well described by my honourable friend the member for

:56:05. > :56:10.champs fled. I do have to make this point first of all, what is the

:56:11. > :56:16.point at the risk of sounding like Basil faulty, what is the point of

:56:17. > :56:21.setting up an airports commission at last cost to look in an expert away

:56:22. > :56:26.at the right solution is then that preferred option, which the airports

:56:27. > :56:32.commission recommends, is simply to be swept aside and west of all were

:56:33. > :56:38.it to be swept aside for narrow political reasons. I'm afraid I have

:56:39. > :56:45.to challenge the suggestion that is being made by some that in some way

:56:46. > :56:53.the airports commission offered three equal options to the

:56:54. > :56:58.government as to the airport that should be developed. Indeed I heard

:56:59. > :57:03.with some alarm my honourable friend the Transport Secretary say on the

:57:04. > :57:09.today programme that the Davis report and I quote, gave us three

:57:10. > :57:13.options, my honourable friend did concede that Heathrow was the

:57:14. > :57:17.preferred option but there is no reading that one can possibly make

:57:18. > :57:21.of the airports commission that leads to a conclusion other than

:57:22. > :57:30.Heathrow was the unequivocal recommendation of the commission.

:57:31. > :57:36.Davis deads said Heathrow was the best answer, Heathrow presented the

:57:37. > :57:43.strongest case, Gatwick was plausible but he then went on to

:57:44. > :57:47.explain why Gatwick had not offered the same benefits. Those were

:57:48. > :57:51.connectivity, that Gatwick is an airport that lies to the south of

:57:52. > :57:57.London and is not connected to the transport network in the same way,

:57:58. > :58:04.the rail link to Gatwick is already a joke and oversubscribed and is not

:58:05. > :58:08.connected to HS2. Those were secondly the economic benefit. The

:58:09. > :58:14.economic benefits that Dave is calculated for Heathrow were

:58:15. > :58:22.considerably higher than those of Gatwick, up to ?147 billion in net

:58:23. > :58:29.present value of net economic benefit by comparison to ?89 billion

:58:30. > :58:35.of economic benefit to Gatwick. A considerable difference. Third

:58:36. > :58:38.overall and I think in sense most significantly Davis pointed out that

:58:39. > :58:42.Gatwick could not offered the connectivity of Heathrow and this I

:58:43. > :58:48.think goes to the heart of the matter. We need a single hub airport

:58:49. > :58:51.and that is what almost all of the airlines are saying and the great

:58:52. > :58:55.danger now would be to produce a solution that does not deliver that

:58:56. > :59:00.hard and to watch what happens to London as a consequence were we to

:59:01. > :59:04.then lose business to our international competitors. New York

:59:05. > :59:10.has two airports, where is the hub on the east coast of the US? It's at

:59:11. > :59:15.Chicago, a far bigger airport than the New York offering, far more

:59:16. > :59:20.connectivity and New York loses out as a consequence. Tokyo has two

:59:21. > :59:29.airports. Where is the new hub, new business going in the far east? Not

:59:30. > :59:32.to Tokyo but to Korea and although competition has been advantageous

:59:33. > :59:38.and the break-up of the monopolistic ownership of airports has delivered

:59:39. > :59:43.benefits to passengers, the idea that competition would be a good

:59:44. > :59:47.thing, that somehow we could run two hub airports when all experience has

:59:48. > :59:51.told us that is what the airlines do not want to do, that experience of

:59:52. > :59:57.spitting business between Heathrow and Gatwick was such a disaster for

:59:58. > :00:05.British Airways in the past, is one for the birds. The member for

:00:06. > :00:10.Richmond Park said Gatwick is flying to Jakarta. Actually it would have

:00:11. > :00:15.announced they will leave Gatwick and go back to Heathrow. Heathrow

:00:16. > :00:21.offers a better connectivity for them in terms of a direct flight to

:00:22. > :00:27.Jakarta. I think we would be making a serious mistake on the worst kind

:00:28. > :00:32.of short-term decision-making is we ignored the unequivocal

:00:33. > :00:37.recommendation of this report. In 1974, Labour camps in the Channel

:00:38. > :00:40.Tunnel proposed then by a Conservative government. It

:00:41. > :00:45.cancelled the map airport proposal and we are still paying the price.

:00:46. > :00:51.The Channel Tunnel link was built decades later and way behind the

:00:52. > :00:58.rail link was then way behind that of the French and we do not have a

:00:59. > :01:03.hub airport. Lord Adonis described that as stupid, short-term is

:01:04. > :01:07.decisions. We have a clear recommendation from the airports

:01:08. > :01:10.commission. The evidence is clear. The government set up the report,

:01:11. > :01:15.now is not the time to run away from it.

:01:16. > :01:22.Heathrow is something that has been in the background for me for 43

:01:23. > :01:26.years. At people just north of Ealing Broadway if you were doing a

:01:27. > :01:32.reading in assembly you would have to stop and the teacher would say,

:01:33. > :01:39.hang on, and Concorde would fly past and then you could continue. -- at

:01:40. > :01:43.primary school just north. I now live even more directly in the

:01:44. > :01:51.flight path. People I went to school with had parents with jobs at

:01:52. > :01:55.Heathrow, I now do as well, it is a significant local employer with

:01:56. > :01:58.vital importance to the hotel of west London strategically. I have

:01:59. > :02:02.good relationships with them as an employer, I went back to that

:02:03. > :02:06.primary school on an engineering challenge with them, I have been up

:02:07. > :02:15.the control tower and I recognise the figures, I think... There was a

:02:16. > :02:24.3 Borough study that said 70,000 jobs, the one from Heathrow is even

:02:25. > :02:30.higher, 76 thousand directly, even though indirectly. I like the fact I

:02:31. > :02:36.can directly get a Piccadilly line train in 20 minutes but despite all

:02:37. > :02:39.this and the fantastical figures that Heathrow promise will come with

:02:40. > :02:47.expansion I can't support expansion at this time. It is in the wrong

:02:48. > :02:52.place. If you were starting from scratch you would not build

:02:53. > :02:57.London's main hub airport in a densely populated urban area which

:02:58. > :03:02.brings a raft of problems like noise, air pollution and traffic

:03:03. > :03:07.congestion. The main European hub is not in a compatible destination,

:03:08. > :03:13.they built it over fields, and those impacts are already high, so how is

:03:14. > :03:20.an extra runway going to solve that? Air pollution and traffic gridlock

:03:21. > :03:22.are much worse than ever before. My honourable friend from Hammersmith

:03:23. > :03:31.mentioned the villages in Harmondsworth, those places that

:03:32. > :03:36.would be bulldozed to do this, thousands of homes. In expansion

:03:37. > :03:41.there are no snakes than ladders. If you are doing an analysis of

:03:42. > :03:53.environmental threat in terms of noise pollution and carbon

:03:54. > :03:59.emissions, they far outweigh the sometimes even, 1 could say,

:04:00. > :04:05.spurious claims that Heathrow makes. It already breaches the legal limits

:04:06. > :04:12.on air quality and there is insufficient assurance to address

:04:13. > :04:15.this. Gatwick, which is still on the table, has never broken legal air

:04:16. > :04:20.quality limits and would remain within them even with an extra

:04:21. > :04:26.runway. The figures are 18,000 people will be newly affected by

:04:27. > :04:32.expansion to Gatwick, 320,000 for Heathrow, 17 times is the

:04:33. > :04:37.difference. We are at a time when every pound of public expenditure

:04:38. > :04:42.should be justified. To expand Gatwick would cost the Treasury

:04:43. > :04:48.pretty much nothing, whereas for Heathrow it would be ?20 billion of

:04:49. > :04:53.taxpayer subsidy. Many people have mentioned, Willie Walsh has said it

:04:54. > :04:59.is unjustifiable in terms of costs. We constantly hear that Heathrow is

:05:00. > :05:04.at capacity but Gatwick had 40 million passengers last year, which

:05:05. > :05:09.the Airports Commission report said would not happen until 2024. It is

:05:10. > :05:16.crying out for expansion. Yesterday evening I was at a public meeting at

:05:17. > :05:20.a church in Chiswick and there were 200 people there. The organisers

:05:21. > :05:27.said 300, maybe it is a medium between those figures, but they were

:05:28. > :05:30.unanimous in their opposition to a third Heathrow runway. We have seen

:05:31. > :05:37.flashbulbs that showed the strength of feeling against this. My maiden

:05:38. > :05:45.speech said I wanted to be a voice for the suburbs. People yesterday

:05:46. > :05:49.from Bedford Park Society said that is the world's first Garden suburb,

:05:50. > :05:54.which was initially marketed by saying it was the world's most

:05:55. > :06:00.healthy place. They feel this will make a mockery of that. It has been

:06:01. > :06:04.mentioned that regional expansion is another possibility. We can even

:06:05. > :06:15.think beyond our reliance on planes. The meetings we all have could be

:06:16. > :06:18.done by telephone conferencing even. My friend the honourable member for

:06:19. > :06:22.Bristol South says there is an airport there that could be

:06:23. > :06:30.expanded, there is Stansted, which is echoingly empty compared to

:06:31. > :06:41.Heathrow and Gatwick. Expansion at Manchester would fit the northern

:06:42. > :06:46.powerhouse argument. It was 2012 before I was a candidate, even

:06:47. > :06:53.before then for 20 years this has been talked about. I just hope this

:06:54. > :06:57.point be pushed into the long grass further, any longer, and that the

:06:58. > :07:05.right decision is made for West London. Going back to Bedford Park,

:07:06. > :07:08.which are used to represent as a Conservative councillor, can I put

:07:09. > :07:13.it to her that all these people who live there, and this is an affluent

:07:14. > :07:18.area, not only knew that Heathrow was there when they moved there, but

:07:19. > :07:22.given the nature of their placate -- occupations probably benefit from

:07:23. > :07:29.the close proximity of Heathrow. I thank him for his intervention. It

:07:30. > :07:35.depends when they moved there, there were people there yesterday who said

:07:36. > :07:41.when they moved there Heathrow was a glimmer of what it is now, there

:07:42. > :07:47.were not suddenly five terminals. I am not saying we should raise to the

:07:48. > :07:50.ground Heathrow, I am saying it is important strategically for the

:07:51. > :07:58.whole of West London, I like it being near me, but London is big

:07:59. > :08:06.enough, it is a city with a population of 10 million soon, why

:08:07. > :08:10.can't we have the two destinations, Gatwick and Heathrow, it is

:08:11. > :08:15.completely possible. Those are the two in this report, or we could look

:08:16. > :08:25.at regional alternatives, there are places other than just London in

:08:26. > :08:32.this country. Funnily enough I think that there are some good things in

:08:33. > :08:36.the report by the aviation commission. Two conclusions I agree

:08:37. > :08:41.with, Britain needs more aviation capacity, as has been said by many

:08:42. > :08:46.honourable friends this afternoon, and I think it is a disgrace for

:08:47. > :08:51.instance that Frankfurt airport already serves 100 more destinations

:08:52. > :08:56.than Heathrow, a wretched fact when we are trying to intensify trading

:08:57. > :09:01.cooperation with China. There are about nine cities in China that you

:09:02. > :09:10.cannot reach from the UK, only from airports in continental Europe.

:09:11. > :09:14.Second point I agree with, and I don't think it is really universally

:09:15. > :09:19.shared here this afternoon, is that the only way to achieve that greater

:09:20. > :09:29.connectivity is to have a hard airport and you need to have the

:09:30. > :09:36.volume of passengers to build the wealth of destinations. -- hub

:09:37. > :09:41.airport. The bigger the hub, -- the spokes, the bigger the hub. The only

:09:42. > :09:46.conclusion that has been come to is that that solution doesn't lie at

:09:47. > :09:53.Heathrow. It can't provide a long-term solution because it is so

:09:54. > :10:00.geographically constrained. It is basically in the wrong place for

:10:01. > :10:03.expansion. The environmental impacts and drawbacks have been well

:10:04. > :10:09.rehearsed this afternoon. I would point out to the Member for

:10:10. > :10:15.Aldershot that of course it is not just existing Londoners who would be

:10:16. > :10:21.affected by the increase in noise, although they might not appreciate

:10:22. > :10:26.planes coming in at 4am, which is what would happen if the night

:10:27. > :10:31.flight ban was overturned. There would be at least according to the

:10:32. > :10:39.aviation commission 150,000 more Londoners who would be affected by

:10:40. > :10:48.the expansion of the airport, a third runway. According to some

:10:49. > :10:52.sources 300,000 more and that is quite contrary to the government's

:10:53. > :10:59.expressed policy on aviation expansion. The second problem of

:11:00. > :11:04.course is not just noise, it is the fumes and pollution, and if you look

:11:05. > :11:07.at what will happen, many honourable members have already made this

:11:08. > :11:14.point, but it is absolutely clear that the limit values on the Bath

:11:15. > :11:20.Road will be well exceeded, there will be very serious legal

:11:21. > :11:23.challenges. I think they would be insuperable legal challenges. To

:11:24. > :11:31.build this great generator of noise and pollution in West London would

:11:32. > :11:35.cost far more than is currently estimated, the excess transport

:11:36. > :11:42.costs alone are estimated by TfL to be between ?10 billion and ?15

:11:43. > :11:45.billion, on top of the ?18.6 billion that the aviation commission has

:11:46. > :11:53.estimated for the cost of the third runway it self. Thank you for giving

:11:54. > :12:01.way. It has been estimated that surface transport costs for Heathrow

:12:02. > :12:09.would cost ?5 billion of public money, whereas my preferred option

:12:10. > :12:15.of Gatwick would cost zero. We could use that ?5 billion elsewhere on

:12:16. > :12:22.much-needed surface transport, such as a channel extension to Saturn. A

:12:23. > :12:31.very good point, and you will have heard from the Chancellor's economic

:12:32. > :12:36.plan that the extension to Sutton is ready much in our programme. Nobody

:12:37. > :12:41.has factored in the extra costs of the chance board, the government

:12:42. > :12:46.says they won't pay, the airlines say they won't pay. -- costs of the

:12:47. > :12:54.transport. I think this proposal is not able to be delivered. My final

:12:55. > :13:02.point, even if a third runway were to be completed, and it couldn't get

:13:03. > :13:07.done until 2030 by the aviation commission's own admission, it will

:13:08. > :13:12.be full at the point of completion, and it doesn't answer the exam

:13:13. > :13:15.question in the sense that it doesn't deliver the extra

:13:16. > :13:20.connectivity that we all want. It does not hook up British business

:13:21. > :13:28.with those extra destinations in China, let alone Latin America and

:13:29. > :13:31.Africa. According to the aviation commission's own figures the number

:13:32. > :13:39.of new long haul destinations would only increase by seven x 2030, the

:13:40. > :13:44.number of domestic routes, to answer the point made by some Scottish

:13:45. > :13:52.friends, would go down from seven to four. There RCTs in the United

:13:53. > :14:01.Kingdom that would lose their connection to our hub airport. --

:14:02. > :14:04.there are cities. I thank him for mentioning the connectivity to

:14:05. > :14:11.Scotland. Does he believe this should be an English only matter,

:14:12. > :14:12.does he believe that it should be for UK Parliament as a whole to

:14:13. > :14:23.decide? Nobody in Scotland would wish to be

:14:24. > :14:28.disadvantaged by the construction of a third runway at Heathrow. That

:14:29. > :14:33.would disadvantage community is not just in Scotland but other regional

:14:34. > :14:38.cities in the UK who would lose connectivity as a result of going

:14:39. > :14:46.down the wrong route, because as I say, by 2030, Heathrow, runway three

:14:47. > :14:51.would be full and the pressure would be an as my honourable friend for

:14:52. > :14:58.Richmond Park Whiteley said, I probably ought to bring my remarks

:14:59. > :15:04.to a close, as he Whiteley said in his excellent speech, the pressure

:15:05. > :15:09.would be overwhelming then for us to build a fourth runway at Heathrow

:15:10. > :15:15.which would be a total environmental catastrophe and where would we be

:15:16. > :15:19.then? What would we have done? Who would have blighted the lives of

:15:20. > :15:24.hundreds of thousands of Londoners and not just those who under the

:15:25. > :15:28.existing flight path but people in Pimlico, whose cross, south London,

:15:29. > :15:34.Chelsea, Shepherd's Bush, Hammersmith who have no idea of the

:15:35. > :15:38.scourge of visitors upon them by this appalling decision. We will

:15:39. > :15:43.have greatly worsen air quality in the greatest city on earth in breach

:15:44. > :15:46.of our international obligations, we will have spent colossal sums of

:15:47. > :15:52.taxpayers money to create a short-term solution that will not

:15:53. > :15:58.address the problem of Britain's lack of connectivity and we will

:15:59. > :16:04.find ourselves then were we to make that appalling mistake of having to

:16:05. > :16:10.address the same long-term questions that we seem determined to shirk

:16:11. > :16:14.now. That is why I think it is time to pause, to avoid making a

:16:15. > :16:21.disastrous mistake. There are better, more practical solutions on

:16:22. > :16:29.the table. Indeed, you know what they are. You know what they are. I

:16:30. > :16:33.do not have time to rehearse them now but they are infinitely

:16:34. > :16:40.preferable. They do deliver the long-term solution, they are

:16:41. > :16:44.environmental sensible. By the way they could be achieved at roughly a

:16:45. > :16:51.comfortable cost and let me tell you, in conclusion, the Prime

:16:52. > :16:56.Minister was absolutely right when he said in 2009 that he wanted to

:16:57. > :17:03.oppose a third runway at Heathrow. He was right to commit us, I voted

:17:04. > :17:14.for that, many elected on that manifesto. Order! I want to add a

:17:15. > :17:18.little bit of selfish flavour to this being from Northern Ireland. I

:17:19. > :17:24.note the point of how much it will blight so to members areas but I

:17:25. > :17:31.also like the point that the honourable friend made of national

:17:32. > :17:35.interest if we could look at this police from national interest, we in

:17:36. > :17:40.Northern Ireland need all the routes we can get and it looks to us that

:17:41. > :17:45.Heathrow is the best linkage that we can have and why am I speaking today

:17:46. > :17:50.because I have Belfast International Airport in my patch and I know that

:17:51. > :17:56.in Northern Ireland the very lifeblood of every single thing we

:17:57. > :18:04.do their depends on flying. If you cannot fly from Northern Ireland or

:18:05. > :18:08.indeed the con that it is a half day journey so the whole of our

:18:09. > :18:15.businesses, the whole of our lives link by flight to major hubs. I

:18:16. > :18:21.accept what he is saying but there are excellent services from Luton to

:18:22. > :18:27.Belfast and looting is connected to London. It is not a problem. I

:18:28. > :18:35.accept his point of view. I look at the choice of Heathrow, Stansted,

:18:36. > :18:39.Gatwick. Heathrow most of the time is the most comfortable one to do

:18:40. > :18:43.everything because it is the closest to the industry and getting here

:18:44. > :18:50.quickly, but I do accept it could be any of them and I think we would

:18:51. > :18:55.need extra runways at each one to build hubs throughout the UK because

:18:56. > :18:59.we will find flying expands and becomes more and more throughout the

:19:00. > :19:04.UK and the longer we take with this sort of debate, we will not have any

:19:05. > :19:09.decisions taken. I know what he means. It is not only from the point

:19:10. > :19:15.of view from the honourable gentleman, it is also from the

:19:16. > :19:20.perspective of a CEO from a Chinese company, being able to go to their

:19:21. > :19:30.wheat or airports and going straight to Heathrow. I want to see what we

:19:31. > :19:35.see as the northern powerhouse, Northern Ireland being the one that

:19:36. > :19:40.thrives but we seem to borrow the name from others by 52% of those

:19:41. > :19:46.travelling by air from Northern Ireland now go via Dublin. 52%. If

:19:47. > :19:51.you think how much business that is going out to the UK going to

:19:52. > :19:56.Ireland, going away, the Irish are very clever, they have no air

:19:57. > :20:04.passenger duty so it is cheaper to go that way. It is easier to drive

:20:05. > :20:07.to Dublin and fly than it is to fly from Belfast to Manchester,

:20:08. > :20:16.Heathrow. If you want to keep things within the union, we need that help.

:20:17. > :20:21.They also do the visas direct to America so it is quicker to get to

:20:22. > :20:25.America from Dublin and soon they will have a direct. Railway line

:20:26. > :20:30.that will take you there. Everything Ireland does it does extremely well

:20:31. > :20:36.to improve their connectivity. We need that, that means I need you to

:20:37. > :20:42.take on board that we need the decision quickly because that is

:20:43. > :20:47.what will help us. One of the report mentions 179,000 jobs for the whole

:20:48. > :20:54.of the UK. I was looking at that to see how many would come our way. I

:20:55. > :20:59.was told it would only be 5000 but we had 40,000 new jobs in the last

:21:00. > :21:04.few years. We need every job we can get for Northern Ireland to improve,

:21:05. > :21:09.thrive and throw off the curses of the past. Belfast International

:21:10. > :21:14.Airport has about 4.5 million passengers going through it every

:21:15. > :21:20.year and 44,000 tonnes of freight and a mass of business. If I am

:21:21. > :21:24.really trying to get a point across today, we need that connectivity,

:21:25. > :21:29.want to push the union point of view, we need your help, please, do

:21:30. > :21:36.not take too long in making decisions because it matters to us.

:21:37. > :21:42.Thank you. I think I'm right in saying that on the first member to

:21:43. > :21:45.speak in this debate who is not from the south-east of the country and

:21:46. > :21:56.therefore can hopefully bring a slightly different perspective. And

:21:57. > :22:00.bring a different English perspective to this debate, because

:22:01. > :22:05.as has already been said, this debate really has to be about what

:22:06. > :22:12.is right for Britain for the UK. It cannot just be be based on the views

:22:13. > :22:17.of people in the South or particularly those close to either

:22:18. > :22:22.of the airports. He needs to be based on what is right for our

:22:23. > :22:29.nation. It is clear that aviation connectivity is going to be critical

:22:30. > :22:34.to our economic success. A recent report by a robust global market

:22:35. > :22:40.forecast predicted that aviation will grow by 4% a year for the next

:22:41. > :22:45.20 years and that we will need an additional 30,000 aircraft to be

:22:46. > :22:51.built during that time. Economic growth, the growth in middle classes

:22:52. > :22:54.around the world, affordability and ease of travel, urbanisation and

:22:55. > :22:58.tourism are all factors that are increasing to the demand on aviation

:22:59. > :23:04.and connectivity between people and regions is going to become more and

:23:05. > :23:08.more wine issue. Increasing urbanisation that will lead to the

:23:09. > :23:15.doubling of the number of megacities in the world is going to mean that

:23:16. > :23:22.99% of the world's long haul traffic will be between all through those

:23:23. > :23:25.cities. If we want Britain to remain connected to these emerging markets

:23:26. > :23:31.and keep the British economy growing and continue to play our role as one

:23:32. > :23:34.of the world's leading economies, it is imperative that we have the

:23:35. > :23:43.ability to transport passengers and high-value goods between the cities.

:23:44. > :23:48.I find it incredible as recently elected member of this house that we

:23:49. > :23:51.are having this debate now. I find it incredible that we have not

:23:52. > :23:57.addressed this issue long ago as has been said by other members, we have

:23:58. > :24:01.been debating this issue for 20 years, decades and Britain has

:24:02. > :24:06.fallen further and further behind as a direct result of cars not grasping

:24:07. > :24:13.this issue. We have lost ground on other countries. Other countries are

:24:14. > :24:17.building their capacity, we see this in Germany, in the Middle East. I

:24:18. > :24:20.was recently at Istanbul airport and could not build the expansion and

:24:21. > :24:26.modernisation that had taken place there. If we are looking to the

:24:27. > :24:37.future, we have to address this issue and make sure that Britain

:24:38. > :24:42.keeps pace. He's right to save that we have been debating this for a

:24:43. > :24:47.long time. Would he shared that -- my frustrating that we have did

:24:48. > :24:51.baited central London's connection to the rest of the world rather than

:24:52. > :24:57.the rest of Britain. I agree with him. This needs to be what is right

:24:58. > :25:01.for Britain and part of that debate and decision needs to be about

:25:02. > :25:07.connecting the regions to world markets. It is not just about

:25:08. > :25:11.connectivity to London. It is about connecting the regions of the UK to

:25:12. > :25:17.world markets and that's where I believe Heathrow is by far the best

:25:18. > :25:20.opportunity to achieve that. I am personally of the view that this

:25:21. > :25:25.debate is actually about which airport we expand first. I think we

:25:26. > :25:32.will look back in 30 or 40 years' time and wish we had done both

:25:33. > :25:36.Heathrow and Gatwick now because aviation capacity will be required

:25:37. > :25:42.more and more in the years ahead. Heathrow operates currently at 90%

:25:43. > :25:46.capacity and this means that it only needs the site is Fletch, whether

:25:47. > :25:52.that be bad weather conditions or some other issue to create severe

:25:53. > :25:57.problems there and it also means they are unable to accommodate the

:25:58. > :26:02.growth that we need to see so that we as a nation can continue to

:26:03. > :26:07.benefit from connectivity to the emotion markets around the world. I

:26:08. > :26:11.believe we would not only be foolish to not go ahead and make a decision

:26:12. > :26:20.now but future generations will look back and view it as an almost

:26:21. > :26:26.criminal waste of opportunity. If this was France and France have

:26:27. > :26:32.produced the Davis report there would be no argument. They were just

:26:33. > :26:36.steam roller it through. I thank my honourable friend for the

:26:37. > :26:41.intervention. He makes a point that I was about to come onto although I

:26:42. > :26:46.have no desire personally to live in France all to operate in the way the

:26:47. > :26:50.French sometimes do but I will make the point that we have spent ?20

:26:51. > :26:57.million and three years in coming up with an independent report. It would

:26:58. > :27:02.seem completely foolish to not take the view of that independent report

:27:03. > :27:06.and I'm aware that members today have challenged different aspects of

:27:07. > :27:10.it and crashed on the veracity some of the data but at the end of the

:27:11. > :27:14.day, we have an independent report that has taken a great deal of time

:27:15. > :27:20.and cost a lot of money and I believe we should take the clear

:27:21. > :27:24.view that that report gives us. Just to remind my honourable friend that

:27:25. > :27:30.the people of France did indeed face the same problem that we have in

:27:31. > :27:36.London and decided to build a huge new hub airport away from the

:27:37. > :27:42.central accommodation. I'm well aware of his views on this issue.

:27:43. > :27:45.However, I recently had a meeting with the air traffic control people

:27:46. > :27:50.who said to me that an additional airport to the east of London would

:27:51. > :27:55.create some very real challenges in terms of air traffic control because

:27:56. > :28:00.it would conflict with air traffic from the Netherlands. I am not sure

:28:01. > :28:07.that is the answer. I will give way one more time. Would he agree they

:28:08. > :28:13.other challenge would be providing well connections as it would be

:28:14. > :28:20.impossible to drill a hole under London to connect with that airport?

:28:21. > :28:24.I agree. I represent the constituency of the key and Cornwall

:28:25. > :28:29.and it is clearly the view of the vast majority of people and the

:28:30. > :28:34.business community in Cornwall that Heathrow clearly offers us the best

:28:35. > :28:38.opportunity to connect our region to world markets, not just about

:28:39. > :28:42.passengers but about goods and the desire to export some of our goods

:28:43. > :28:49.to walk markets and Heathrow offers us the best opportunity to achieve

:28:50. > :28:54.that and we need to remember this is not just about passengers. Heathrow

:28:55. > :28:59.is our biggest support by valuing the whole country, around ?100

:29:00. > :29:04.billion worth of goods come in and out of Heathrow every year. It is

:29:05. > :29:08.for bigger than any container port in the country and we need to

:29:09. > :29:13.recognise this. This is not just about passengers, it is also about

:29:14. > :29:20.goods and the opportunities to exploit. In summing up, first of

:29:21. > :29:24.all, we need to make a decision, we cannot procrastinate any longer

:29:25. > :29:28.about this issue. We need to make a clear decision and I really trust

:29:29. > :29:32.the government are going to come forward with a clear decision in the

:29:33. > :29:36.next few weeks as they have promised. This decision must be

:29:37. > :29:41.about what is right for our nation and not just taking one the views of

:29:42. > :29:46.a few people in the immediate localities. It has to be what is

:29:47. > :29:52.right for our nation. Thirdly, let's get on with it. I am personally

:29:53. > :29:56.backing Heathrow. It offers the best option for our country and

:29:57. > :30:00.particularly for my region but let's just get on with it.

:30:01. > :30:07.We will have to drop to five minutes. I must apologise to

:30:08. > :30:14.colleagues for not having been able to be at this debate, although I was

:30:15. > :30:16.able to listen to contributions, like the excellent one from the

:30:17. > :30:23.honourable member from Chelmsford earlier. The honourable member who

:30:24. > :30:28.has just spoken suggests that opposition to Heathrow is from the

:30:29. > :30:32.people who are next door to Heathrow. I speak as representing a

:30:33. > :30:38.constituency that is closer to Heathrow than most of the people who

:30:39. > :30:44.have objected to it. If the Davies commission proposals are implemented

:30:45. > :30:48.the run all runways will actually come -- the runways will come into

:30:49. > :30:52.the borough of Slough, but my constituents recognise that that the

:30:53. > :30:58.prosperity of slow depends on the prosperity of Heathrow. I speak to

:30:59. > :31:03.companies in Slough who talk about the way they depend upon Heathrow.

:31:04. > :31:11.Slough includes within its boundaries more European

:31:12. > :31:17.headquarters of multinational cos then Northern Ireland, Wales and

:31:18. > :31:20.Scotland put together, and that is because of the proximity to

:31:21. > :31:29.Heathrow. They say that their boards are worried about staying in the UK,

:31:30. > :31:33.and that is because they are worried about the future of Heathrow. My

:31:34. > :31:39.first point is, make a decision fast, because if we don't have a

:31:40. > :31:43.clear conclusion supporting the Davies commission proposals soon

:31:44. > :31:47.then what will happen is inward investment, which is really

:31:48. > :31:52.significant and necessary for the UK economy, will be seriously affected.

:31:53. > :31:56.The one thing I think the Davies commission didn't deal with

:31:57. > :32:01.sufficiently well is the issue of air quality. There is clearly a

:32:02. > :32:14.problem around air quality around Heathrow, but it is not all created

:32:15. > :32:23.by the airport. The M4 junction is the most polluted in Europe. It is

:32:24. > :32:26.traffic that contributes to the air around the airport. We have an

:32:27. > :32:31.incinerator in the area which adds to the poor air quality around the

:32:32. > :32:35.airport. As we deal with these proposals I hope that we can expect

:32:36. > :32:40.the government to put in place some things that really make a difference

:32:41. > :32:47.to air quality. In my view the most urgent is the Western rail link into

:32:48. > :32:51.Heathrow, and electrified rail link... When the Labour government

:32:52. > :32:57.discussed the Heathrow third runway I refused to back it until I got a

:32:58. > :33:03.commitment from the then minister that we would electrify the great

:33:04. > :33:07.Western Railway line. In addition to that we need rail links from the

:33:08. > :33:16.West are into Heathrow because the failure to do that is one of the

:33:17. > :33:20.reasons, 1 of the important reasons for the poor air quality around the

:33:21. > :33:24.airport. One thing members have said is it is not able to be delivered

:33:25. > :33:29.because there are so many people under the flight path and so on. The

:33:30. > :33:34.reason why those people are there is because of the prosperity generated

:33:35. > :33:38.by the airport. If we were to move the airport elsewhere the same thing

:33:39. > :33:45.would happen to an alternative location. I think on both sides of

:33:46. > :33:51.the House we all recognise that for the prosperity of the UK we need

:33:52. > :33:56.people to have work, to be able to trade, to have successful inward

:33:57. > :34:02.investment, and frankly the only option on the table which really

:34:03. > :34:07.delivers on all those things is Heathrow. When I was first elected

:34:08. > :34:14.Member of Parliament for Slough Heathrow was the most competitive

:34:15. > :34:18.airport in Europe. It now isn't, we have lost international destinations

:34:19. > :34:30.because it is so crowded. There is now no direct flight to garner from

:34:31. > :34:41.the UK at the moment. -- Ghana. People are going from sheep all and

:34:42. > :34:47.shoulder gold to -- shows the goal. International passengers want to use

:34:48. > :34:56.Heathrow. Why? Because of the English language. It is the unspoken

:34:57. > :34:58.international exporter of the UK and nobody's alternative really will

:34:59. > :35:08.deliver the connectivity and competitiveness in which an expanded

:35:09. > :35:11.Heathrow will do. First of all may I thank the honourable lady, the

:35:12. > :35:19.Member for Twickenham, for initiating this debate today. We can

:35:20. > :35:28.see why on election night she confronted so many of us with her

:35:29. > :35:31.feistiness. I have to say that as a member of the transport Select

:35:32. > :35:40.Committee I am and I love out supporter of a third runway at

:35:41. > :35:43.Heathrow. -- an avowed supporter. I find it frustrating that when we

:35:44. > :35:48.have one of the biggest airports in the world, with a proven track

:35:49. > :35:55.record of success, at the edge of one of the greatest cities, if not

:35:56. > :36:00.the greatest cities in the world -- the greatest city in the world, we

:36:01. > :36:06.prevaricate with glorified NIMBY -ism. I would say to the members for

:36:07. > :36:10.London, it is not about you, it is about the future of the UK. Some of

:36:11. > :36:17.the stances some people have taken in recent years I actually find

:36:18. > :36:25.quite frustrating, it is starting to wear thin, because it is not about

:36:26. > :36:30.electoral campaigns or may the electoral future of the UK.

:36:31. > :36:36.Absolutely right, my constituency is not affected by the airport as it is

:36:37. > :36:41.or is likely to be, but what I said to the honourable member, this is

:36:42. > :36:45.about evidence. If he actually reads this report he will have to

:36:46. > :36:47.recognise that most of the conclusions are undermined by the

:36:48. > :36:55.evidence inside the report. This is one of the most flawed public

:36:56. > :37:02.Holocene documents ever created, we should base it on evidence. --

:37:03. > :37:07.public policy. I have read the reports and Davies has made a very

:37:08. > :37:10.strong recommendation as to a preference, and it is very

:37:11. > :37:16.frustrating when we hear time and again a lack of clear options being

:37:17. > :37:19.provided by those who are viscerally opposed to Heathrow. We have heard

:37:20. > :37:25.in the chamber today, let's have more reviews and discussions, kick

:37:26. > :37:28.it into the long grass, even threats that it will never be built because

:37:29. > :37:37.of legal challenge. I won't give way. I find it quite frustrating

:37:38. > :37:44.that issues of our National infrastructure, that impact not just

:37:45. > :37:48.London. Our constituents, are being sucked out to the lowest common do

:37:49. > :37:52.nominate of what is right for a handful of constituencies in West

:37:53. > :37:59.London. I really have most support the for people... I will give way.

:38:00. > :38:04.Will he not agree that one of the most damning points in the report is

:38:05. > :38:09.the lack of connectivity on a domestic level and on long haul

:38:10. > :38:13.destinations? I would like to pay tribute to Heathrow on that point

:38:14. > :38:19.because from March of next year Heathrow are introducing a

:38:20. > :38:23.connectivity flight to Inverness. If you build a third runway, and I

:38:24. > :38:29.don't accept some of the arguments I have heard in this chamber today,

:38:30. > :38:34.you build a third runway, increase capacity, increase the capacity for

:38:35. > :38:41.improving regional collectivity. People who said there would be no

:38:42. > :38:51.improvement, it is a herring. If you are someone of 70 years of age or

:38:52. > :38:57.less, you have grown up with Heathrow Airport are there and if

:38:58. > :39:00.you grew up beside what was the busiest International Airport in the

:39:01. > :39:07.world you shouldn't be surprised by aircraft noise, by planes flying

:39:08. > :39:11.overhead. That's what happens if you choose to live beside what was the

:39:12. > :39:16.busiest International Airport in the world. Guess what, it is no longer

:39:17. > :39:20.the busiest International Airport in the world because governments of

:39:21. > :39:28.several hues have failed to take a decision. Spurious things like Boris

:39:29. > :39:37.Island, and I really do admire the Member for a bridge on many things

:39:38. > :39:42.-- member for Uxbridge on many things, but it is kicking it down

:39:43. > :39:50.the road so that no decision will be taken. Will my honourable friend

:39:51. > :39:53.also bear in mind that with improved technology and advances in

:39:54. > :39:59.engineering the noise of plane engines is decreasing as well,

:40:00. > :40:04.helping to address that problem. The former transport minister makes a

:40:05. > :40:10.very good point, aircraft, like the A350 and are not only is it 23% less

:40:11. > :40:19.fuel emissions, 60% less noise emissions. People who grow up living

:40:20. > :40:28.beside an aircraft when aircraft were far more noisy, the noise

:40:29. > :40:32.argument, and also the pollution argument, with far more efficient

:40:33. > :40:37.engines, doesn't hold up. Anybody who flies into Heathrow, I would

:40:38. > :40:41.urge them to look at a TV screen above your seats, do you fly

:40:42. > :40:46.straight in or do you circle in figures of eight for half an hour,

:40:47. > :40:55.40 minutes, pumping pollution into the air? Why? Because the airport

:40:56. > :41:00.can't go straight in, it can't land. What makes you think that in three,

:41:01. > :41:09.four, five years' time, if it does get built, and some opinions think

:41:10. > :41:15.it never will, the money spent on the consultation is totally useless,

:41:16. > :41:19.but does he think that after a period of times you won't end up

:41:20. > :41:25.with long haul flights coming in and circling and the regional airports

:41:26. > :41:36.then get squeezed out further. Short interventions! The point is, I am a

:41:37. > :41:39.passionate believer in regional airports, I have an airport in my

:41:40. > :41:48.constituency, so I won't bow to that one, but I firmly believe that the

:41:49. > :41:53.importance -- in the importance of Heathrow being the only realistic,

:41:54. > :41:56.viable, deliverable harbour airport, and in terms of transport

:41:57. > :42:04.connectivity to London, we have Heathrow express bus stop -- hub

:42:05. > :42:13.airport. We have the M 40, the aged 25, connecting into the regions of

:42:14. > :42:21.the UK. -- the M25. We have Crossrail, we have HS2. If that is

:42:22. > :42:25.not true regional collectivity I don't know what is and anybody who

:42:26. > :42:30.suggests to me that building a second runway at Gatwick would

:42:31. > :42:34.deliver that form of service regional collectivity I am afraid is

:42:35. > :42:40.kidding themselves on and it is for the birds. We keep hearing from a

:42:41. > :42:46.sedentary position members from well-heeled constituencies opposed

:42:47. > :42:51.to this airport. My constituency and many constituencies in the regions

:42:52. > :42:57.of the UK will be delighted at the opportunity for such jobs,

:42:58. > :43:03.opportunity and growth. They would bite your hand off, yet we have been

:43:04. > :43:09.pulled down into very narrow debates about what is right for West

:43:10. > :43:14.London. What is right for the UK is that we build a third runway. What

:43:15. > :43:21.is right for the UK is that we identify Heathrow as the hub airport

:43:22. > :43:26.for Western Europe. But as night red right for UK is that we have the

:43:27. > :43:36.clarity in government decision, we take a timely decision and we get on

:43:37. > :43:41.with it. Let's get it built. May I said to my honourable friend who has

:43:42. > :43:46.just spoken, I believe in getting on with things and clarity, they are

:43:47. > :43:50.good. Getting it right is better. The problem with this report is it

:43:51. > :43:56.gets it fundamentally wrong. That is why the Member for Wimbledon in a

:43:57. > :44:00.powerful intervention made the point that this Davies report, yes,

:44:01. > :44:06.certainly it produces options which are there on the table. They are not

:44:07. > :44:11.able to be delivered because it is so full of internal contradictions

:44:12. > :44:14.which have been well set out by the Member for Richmond Park and the

:44:15. > :44:24.Member for Twickenham and the Member for Brentford. Among others. It is

:44:25. > :44:29.so full of contradictions that it will be delayed time and again

:44:30. > :44:37.because it is a recipe for judicial review. Attempting to expand

:44:38. > :44:40.Heathrow will be a field day for well he'd -- well-heeled West London

:44:41. > :44:46.lawyers and won't deliver the connectivity required for this part

:44:47. > :44:49.of the country. It is a blind alley, the process is flawed, the

:44:50. > :44:54.consultation is fundamentally flawed, it is not in my judgment

:44:55. > :44:58.legally sound. The second point is that it is also economically flawed.

:44:59. > :45:04.It is clear that the case doesn't stack up, Willie Walsh doesn't make

:45:05. > :45:07.the points he has made for the sake of his own health and he is not

:45:08. > :45:18.economically illiterate... When they acquired British Midland,

:45:19. > :45:25.it was to get their hands on Heathrow slots. Having spent a vast

:45:26. > :45:34.lot of money, he does not want it to weaken his case. It is about one

:45:35. > :45:43.individual constituency or one part of London. -- it is not about. The

:45:44. > :45:48.third runway at Heathrow is but a sticking plaster which will be

:45:49. > :45:52.overcapacity and there will be a need for a fourth runway, which will

:45:53. > :45:57.not be achievable in legal or environmental terms because the

:45:58. > :46:02.Supreme Court judgment has changed the view of things and we cannot

:46:03. > :46:07.ignore that. We will have sunk a huge amount of capital cost into

:46:08. > :46:13.something that is a white elephant by the time it is open. That is not

:46:14. > :46:17.getting on with things. That is not making something that is

:46:18. > :46:22.deliverable. What I do think we need to do is to move forward. They is an

:46:23. > :46:30.alternative. Heathrow may well have been an optimal place for an airport

:46:31. > :46:35.in about 1948, 1950, but at that stage London was literally a

:46:36. > :46:39.shrinking city, its population was reduced in. No one anticipated the

:46:40. > :46:44.massive population growth that would come into London during that

:46:45. > :46:48.period. It is no longer in an appropriate place and therefore we

:46:49. > :46:54.have to look at alternatives. I am not saying we should close Heathrow

:46:55. > :47:02.down, it's an important part of the West London economy but there are

:47:03. > :47:07.more readily viewable alternatives. My constituents like many of those

:47:08. > :47:16.who wrote a letter to the Daily Telegraph today are not all from

:47:17. > :47:37.West London. But we are still affected by the flight paths. What

:47:38. > :47:43.we do need to do is get on with the option which can be most quickly

:47:44. > :47:48.delivered. None is perfect, I might not have started from here, I have

:47:49. > :47:55.sympathy for the member that perhaps if we had looked at the found this

:47:56. > :48:00.option it might have been attractive. Revisiting will not help

:48:01. > :48:04.us deliver. I take the view that the Gatwick option is the right one

:48:05. > :48:10.because it is deliverable. No doubt there will be challenges but the

:48:11. > :48:14.level of potential for legal challenges is less around Gatwick.

:48:15. > :48:18.The issues of dispute are significantly more discreet and it

:48:19. > :48:24.is therefore by Schmallenberg elite deliverable. We have a better chance

:48:25. > :48:27.of that being put forward on time and Gatwick does not exclude the

:48:28. > :48:33.possibility of other more imaginative options being developed

:48:34. > :48:35.for the future, but it does give us an immediate capacity increase in

:48:36. > :48:41.which does not prejudge other ideas going forward and neither does it

:48:42. > :48:46.involve anything like the amount of sunk cost in a potentially unviable

:48:47. > :48:49.option that the additional runway at Heathrow would. All of those are

:48:50. > :49:01.good options for opposing it and the final reason is, I fought an

:49:02. > :49:06.election in 2010 saying I was opposed to Heathrow expansion, I

:49:07. > :49:14.fought to elections in the London assembly saying I oppose Heathrow

:49:15. > :49:26.expansion, call me old-fashioned, I would rather like to try and keep my

:49:27. > :49:35.promises. I hope we can do so. Thank you for allowing me to respond. It

:49:36. > :49:39.is not the answer that I would favour and nor is it the answer that

:49:40. > :49:45.would be favoured by many of my friends, colleagues and neighbours

:49:46. > :49:50.in West Kent and indeed in Sussex. It is not the answer for the simple

:49:51. > :49:54.reason that it is the wrong answer. It is the wrong answer for us in the

:49:55. > :50:00.London area, in the south-east, it is wrong for the country and it is

:50:01. > :50:02.wrong for our economy. It is not going to answer the question of

:50:03. > :50:08.economic development, the question of replacing ship all, it will not

:50:09. > :50:15.answer the challenge that was so eloquently put by my honourable

:50:16. > :50:21.friend who spoke about the need for hub airports. It is wrong, it is

:50:22. > :50:25.wrong and just because you don't like Heathrow does not mean the

:50:26. > :50:30.answer is Gatwick. ?20 million has been spent on this report, three

:50:31. > :50:36.years has been spent on this report and it is not going to be, sorry it

:50:37. > :50:42.should not be reversed simply in a few words in this house. This has

:50:43. > :50:47.meant many years of effort and it is now the right time for us to settle

:50:48. > :50:52.down and get on with it because when you look around at the economic

:50:53. > :50:55.development of the UK, when you look around at the challenges that

:50:56. > :51:01.globalisation presents cars, I hear people who say why can't we use

:51:02. > :51:06.Skype, why can't we use video conferencing? The simple answer is

:51:07. > :51:12.we are humans, we interact, we meet, we talk. This is how we do business,

:51:13. > :51:16.communicate and it is essential we travel and part of that demands we

:51:17. > :51:22.get to the places we need to be and why I like the idea of Birmingham,

:51:23. > :51:25.while I would like to see more investment in Manchester, Glasgow

:51:26. > :51:34.and Edinburgh, the reality is that we are all lowered here to this City

:51:35. > :51:38.of London and it is here where so much of our business is done. I wish

:51:39. > :51:43.it were not so because in my own community of Tunbridge and Western

:51:44. > :51:47.morning, there is so much more opportunity for people to enjoy a

:51:48. > :51:52.proper life that is not ruined by the traffic and the smog that we all

:51:53. > :52:00.know of here. He is making a powerful case for his constituents

:52:01. > :52:05.and for the UK. New York doesn't have a hub airport. There is no

:52:06. > :52:10.other hub airport anywhere in the world restricted to three runways so

:52:11. > :52:16.there is this contradiction inside the report. New York has three

:52:17. > :52:20.airports. We could also run the New York solution in London. He makes an

:52:21. > :52:27.excellent point but even he would recognise that if one were looking

:52:28. > :52:37.at the US, we would look at around the attire 50 states and say where

:52:38. > :52:40.is that Dan of Mannan and we would say it is Chicago. Chicago O'Hare

:52:41. > :52:46.really has the appeal that productivity comes from the hub

:52:47. > :52:50.airport. I will leave it at that because I know there is enormous

:52:51. > :52:54.pressure on time but I am going to say that having had a neighbour like

:52:55. > :52:59.Gatwick for a number of years and the what a bad neighbour it is, how

:53:00. > :53:06.they have changed routes, narrow flight paths, disrupted lives,

:53:07. > :53:15.ruined asleep, including that of my most immediate constituent, my wife

:53:16. > :53:21.and how they have made the lives of many people and absolute misery. I

:53:22. > :53:25.would urge members to think really hard before rejecting the amount of

:53:26. > :53:28.work that has gone into this and rejecting this opportunity for

:53:29. > :53:33.economic growth for the UK and for us to take our rightful place back

:53:34. > :53:41.is the absolute centre of the international community. We have a

:53:42. > :53:45.duty to deliver a modern, competitive economy for ourselves

:53:46. > :53:48.and future generations and these decisions will always be tough but

:53:49. > :53:53.they need to be taken in interests of the country. The south-east and

:53:54. > :54:02.needs additional runway capacity, that is clear with the Howerd's

:54:03. > :54:07.report noting that there have been no new full-length one-way spilled

:54:08. > :54:12.in the south-east since the 1940s. While air travel growth is forecast

:54:13. > :54:19.to slow to a median estimate of 2% per year until 2050 compared to old

:54:20. > :54:25.growth rates of 5%, UK passenger numbers are forecast to increase

:54:26. > :54:33.from 225 million today to 315 million in 2030. If you overlay that

:54:34. > :54:46.date with current capacity, it shows Heathrow and Gatwick at 100th of --

:54:47. > :54:50.100% capacity. Half of the UK population uses air travel each

:54:51. > :54:54.year, that will only grow and as we have a growing international middle

:54:55. > :54:58.class I want Britain to be one of their destinations of choice. If we

:54:59. > :55:02.want to continue as the global economy that we are, these are

:55:03. > :55:07.constraints to growth. Growth that was much good news yesterday in the

:55:08. > :55:15.spending review and that growth is predicated upon our very global

:55:16. > :55:18.economy. We faced losing out as a global centre allowing

:55:19. > :55:22.point-to-point travel, particularly connecting the UK with the new

:55:23. > :55:25.dynamic economies of the world if we do not get going and we are not

:55:26. > :55:32.already lagging behind Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Paris. In Dubai, it

:55:33. > :55:42.ranked as the 1990 in the world in terms of international passengers.

:55:43. > :55:47.By 2011 it was fourth. We're seeing similar meteoric growth at

:55:48. > :55:51.Istanbul, rapidly becoming an international hub but I am not

:55:52. > :55:55.speaking today to suggest Heathrow is the only answer or to discount

:55:56. > :56:01.Gatwick. The operating companies with each have made their arguments

:56:02. > :56:05.but the economics of expansion of the country are obvious but what I

:56:06. > :56:08.do want to emphasise is the benefit of regional airports, particularly

:56:09. > :56:16.in the shorter and intermediate sector and I note the great benefits

:56:17. > :56:20.of Southampton of the spending review yesterday. Returning to the

:56:21. > :56:25.Heathrow versus Gatwick are given, this is the matter forward the

:56:26. > :56:28.members in those areas to overcome and there are obvious connectivity,

:56:29. > :56:33.air quality and noise issues to consider but what I am here to put

:56:34. > :56:37.on the table is a relief valve on current pressures and whatever is

:56:38. > :56:42.decided the lead time before expansion will be a decade, a decade

:56:43. > :56:46.which will fall further behind in the international aviation league

:56:47. > :56:50.and too often in the UK we are behind the curve whether it is on

:56:51. > :56:55.energy generation, railways, roads and indeed airport provision and

:56:56. > :56:59.that is a criticism of all governments in the last 30 years. To

:57:00. > :57:05.increase out his capacity and to develop and accommodate growth, we

:57:06. > :57:11.have Manston airport just 80 miles away from where we are. It is ready

:57:12. > :57:15.to go and read it to go within months to take rate only aircraft

:57:16. > :57:19.from both Heathrow and Gatwick, to the new roots in the low-cost market

:57:20. > :57:27.and why not as an image either solution to open up routes. It will

:57:28. > :57:34.never be a major hub airport but as members may know, the airport was

:57:35. > :57:39.closed a year ago and has sat unused with now an uncertain future. In

:57:40. > :57:44.both parts of Thanet there with a desire for aviation activity to

:57:45. > :57:50.recommends and whether it is the opportunities for emergency

:57:51. > :57:59.provision and if you recall a virgin incident last year, it brought

:58:00. > :58:05.Gatwick for eight hours. I bet numbers must wonder why has it not

:58:06. > :58:10.happened and very simply be local authority having been elected on a

:58:11. > :58:15.single strong policy of promising back-to-back CPO have simply given

:58:16. > :58:20.up and backed out of the deal. So there we are, a huge one-way sitting

:58:21. > :58:27.idle, well-connected can take any size of aircraft and it is doing

:58:28. > :58:34.nothing. He makes a powerful point and certainly from our experience, I

:58:35. > :58:38.am aware of the benefits Manston would bring. Fortunately,

:58:39. > :58:42.Conservative controlled Kent Council takes a much more progressive and

:58:43. > :58:47.sensible view of the value to economic growth in this area and the

:58:48. > :58:57.development of Mansell will be consistent to economic powers. I

:58:58. > :59:01.agree. It has had a bit of a mixed bag in support of Manston but it is

:59:02. > :59:10.a key driver for economic development. I give way. As my

:59:11. > :59:13.honourable friend both know, it is an emergency airstrip in the Second

:59:14. > :59:18.World War and a very long one so can take the biggest aeroplanes that

:59:19. > :59:24.could actually land there so it's quite a good idea.

:59:25. > :59:34.I thank him for his useful comments. Just to bring this to somewhat of a

:59:35. > :59:38.close, this is an appeal from this chamber for potential operators to

:59:39. > :59:44.come and look again at what Manston has, what it can offer as a regional

:59:45. > :59:49.airport that can provide in the next ten years some immediate relief from

:59:50. > :59:56.the lack of capacity that we have on our doorstep at both Heathrow and

:59:57. > :00:00.Gatwick. But really to bring this to a final, whatever the decision is

:00:01. > :00:04.for this country, Gatwick or Heathrow, the economic growth and

:00:05. > :00:11.survival of this country as a major lowball place needs solutions and,

:00:12. > :00:21.please, whatever that decision is let's get to it quickly and make it

:00:22. > :00:27.and start building. -- global place. This debate is very important to my

:00:28. > :00:32.constituents. I thank the MP for Twickenham for speaking so

:00:33. > :00:38.passionately on this subject, as she has done for many years, and today

:00:39. > :00:42.has been no exception. Let me start by saying I need no persuasion that

:00:43. > :00:46.we need another airport in the south-east, we need one soon and we

:00:47. > :00:52.need to get on and make the decision. I am entirely unconvinced

:00:53. > :01:01.by the hypothesis that written won't lose out if we don't build a new

:01:02. > :01:08.runway soon. -- written. -- Britain. The question is, for me, where we

:01:09. > :01:10.are going to build it and it is plainly a difficult political

:01:11. > :01:16.question and one the government was right to seek a report on but there

:01:17. > :01:21.is no requirement to slavishly followed the conclusions of that

:01:22. > :01:25.report. We are elected politicians, we don't outsource things to

:01:26. > :01:32.so-called experts, we consider the evidence and make decisions based on

:01:33. > :01:37.that and the views of our constituents. There are three things

:01:38. > :01:43.I want to pick up on the Davies report, the three breaks on

:01:44. > :01:48.expansion at Heathrow will significantly undermine the case for

:01:49. > :01:53.adding a third runway there. Firstly, the ban on night flights,

:01:54. > :01:57.noise pollution from Heathrow already disturbs more people in west

:01:58. > :02:04.London than any airport in Europe and to get away -- around this

:02:05. > :02:08.problem Davies has suggested a partial ban on night flights.

:02:09. > :02:12.Leaving aside the scepticism of local people but that will be

:02:13. > :02:20.honoured in the breach, it really makes little sense to us to allow an

:02:21. > :02:23.increase in airport capacity to allow flights from more destinations

:02:24. > :02:29.but to ban night flights, when that would in fact reduce connections

:02:30. > :02:35.from places like Hong Kong, Singapore and China as well as deter

:02:36. > :02:39.some low-cost carriers. The second predicate on expansion at Heathrow

:02:40. > :02:44.is the meeting of a quality targets. Davies said the targets must be met

:02:45. > :02:50.before any aeroplanes are allowed to take off from the third runway.

:02:51. > :02:53.Their pollution already kills an estimated 10,000 Londoners every

:02:54. > :02:58.year so it is right that reducing air pollution is one of the caveats

:02:59. > :03:04.for allowing additional flights from Heathrow but it is a caveat that

:03:05. > :03:09.can't be met any time soon. It is certainly not a caveat that will be

:03:10. > :03:18.met in the next few years, even on the basis that there is no expansion

:03:19. > :03:23.at Heathrow. How can it possibly the Met if we add a third runway? I

:03:24. > :03:28.can't understand how a third runway with more flights and more pollution

:03:29. > :03:34.is going to reduce the pollution we currently see at Heathrow. Gatwick

:03:35. > :03:39.has never breached any UK annual air quality limits. We have heard of

:03:40. > :03:46.political decisions that would have led to bridges and roads to nowhere

:03:47. > :03:51.in Alaska. We don't want a runway to nowhere at Heathrow because that

:03:52. > :03:55.won't solve the urgent need for additional airport capacity. The

:03:56. > :03:59.third predicate is that Parliament should legislate against a fourth

:04:00. > :04:05.runway at Heathrow. I have to say, for my constituents the fact that

:04:06. > :04:08.Davies says we have to legislate against this rather underscores the

:04:09. > :04:15.risk that that is what would happen if we did not. Legislation really

:04:16. > :04:19.provides no comfort to our constituents because all it would do

:04:20. > :04:24.would mean that the matter would have to come before this House

:04:25. > :04:28.before a runway was ever built. My constituents in Kingston and

:04:29. > :04:35.Surbiton, already in fact quite badly affected by noise from

:04:36. > :04:42.Heathrow, and we are not even under the flight path, and what this means

:04:43. > :04:46.for me and my constituents in New Maldon is that one of the flight

:04:47. > :04:52.paths goes directly over their houses and that is clear on the

:04:53. > :04:58.plan. The effect of noise disruption has been regularly raised by

:04:59. > :05:01.honourable and Right Honourable members representing constituencies

:05:02. > :05:11.around Heathrow against the third runway. May I put on the runway that

:05:12. > :05:22.the effects on my constituents were huge because of flights at Gatwick.

:05:23. > :05:26.Thank you very much for that intervention, I am sure the

:05:27. > :05:29.honourable member when she is up at Chiswick and will welcome the fact

:05:30. > :05:34.that a third runway is not going to go ahead because I feel that the

:05:35. > :05:39.legal challenges are so great that even if this approved it will not

:05:40. > :05:43.proceed. I don't forget for one moment that I have a number of

:05:44. > :05:49.constituents that work at Heathrow Airport but the fact is that if a

:05:50. > :05:52.third runway is not going to be built at Heathrow it will not close

:05:53. > :05:57.down, it will still be one of the busiest airports in the world and it

:05:58. > :06:04.will still be a big provider of jobs to people from London and my

:06:05. > :06:08.constituency. People agree that we need more airport capacity, almost

:06:09. > :06:14.everybody agrees that we need to get on and make a decision. I don't Tim

:06:15. > :06:19.Murtagh from the proposition that choosing an International Airport

:06:20. > :06:25.hub is something that we need to get on with but the solution is not a

:06:26. > :06:33.third runway at Heathrow. -- I don't demur. This debate comes the very

:06:34. > :06:38.day we have been reminded so starkly of the importance of having a

:06:39. > :06:42.growing and could -- successful UK economy. If we are to ensure that

:06:43. > :06:46.our economic legacy to future generations isn't just billions and

:06:47. > :06:52.billions of pounds of debt and make sure the future prosperity of our

:06:53. > :06:54.country isn't just based in the south-east of England but embraces

:06:55. > :06:59.all of the nations and regions, we have some very difficult but

:07:00. > :07:06.necessary decisions to take. The government, as my honourable friend

:07:07. > :07:11.for Twickenham reminded us, has made recommendations in the past about

:07:12. > :07:15.Heathrow but also Gatwick. They are fully aware on the front bench of

:07:16. > :07:22.the intense passions that this debate will incite, as so eloquently

:07:23. > :07:28.put by my honourable friend from Richmond Park. They acted with great

:07:29. > :07:33.foresight setting up an independent commission, giving them the funds

:07:34. > :07:36.and resources and time necessary and access to every conceivable expert

:07:37. > :07:42.to produce a fully worked through report and the result of that is

:07:43. > :07:45.clear, it is unequivocal and it is unanimous, a recommendation in

:07:46. > :07:52.favour of expansion at Heathrow. The economic case that they present is

:07:53. > :07:56.overwhelming. They estimate that Heathrow expansion results in a two

:07:57. > :08:06.thirds better solution than the one at Gatwick. According to analysis

:08:07. > :08:12.there is a ?50 billion gap, other results say it could be as much as

:08:13. > :08:17.?90 billion gap. Heathrow results in a far superior increase in

:08:18. > :08:27.additional long haul routes, a 20% increase in long haul destinations.

:08:28. > :08:33.Is the honourable member aware that that ?147 billion figure in the

:08:34. > :08:38.airport commissions report is challenged by the commission's own

:08:39. > :08:45.economic advisers and the compatible in a fit between Heathrow and

:08:46. > :08:50.Gatwick is very small. I have also seen the evidence of the letters

:08:51. > :08:56.from the commission on the 27th and 28th of September rebutting a number

:08:57. > :09:02.of points including that. I believe -- we have a 20% increase in long

:09:03. > :09:15.haul destinations. Of course it is important that we entertain in this

:09:16. > :09:20.place world statesman but we need planes going out daily to those

:09:21. > :09:26.countries represented by those leaders. We know we are winning the

:09:27. > :09:33.global race when we have Chinese, Indian and Brazilian CEOs gracing

:09:34. > :09:36.the streets of Liverpool, Newcastle, Glasgow and Newquay.

:09:37. > :09:41.Domestic flights into Heathrow have been crowded out in the last 25

:09:42. > :09:46.years. As he writes in the report, our discussions with the

:09:47. > :09:49.stakeholders in the nations and regions reveal clearly the

:09:50. > :09:55.importance they attached to direct links to Heathrow. It gives access

:09:56. > :10:01.to a substantial long haul network. I will give way. I want to remind my

:10:02. > :10:06.honourable friend of what has already been said in this House at

:10:07. > :10:12.the Davis commission themselves admit that the international long

:10:13. > :10:19.haul flights go up by only seven destinations to 2030 and further

:10:20. > :10:27.seven to 2050. They actually come down, domestic destinations, from

:10:28. > :10:31.seven to four. I quote from the chair of the GLA, ten to 12

:10:32. > :10:42.additional long haul routes by 2040, an increase of up to 20%, and they

:10:43. > :10:45.define how they set out their daily destinations, the services required

:10:46. > :10:49.by CEOs going out to visit their clients and bringing them back to

:10:50. > :10:57.the UK. This is not just about economic arguments, I accept that. A

:10:58. > :11:00.third of the report details the environmental and local community

:11:01. > :11:04.concerns. It was due to be a third of my speech but I have taken the

:11:05. > :11:12.leave from the chair that that would probably not be welcome. There are a

:11:13. > :11:16.few points, I would welcome the establishment of the International

:11:17. > :11:19.noise authority, it will be a huge benefit across the country where we

:11:20. > :11:30.suffer from aircraft noise, including areas that are rural with

:11:31. > :11:34.Laura ambient noise. -- lower. On an equality are I described the

:11:35. > :11:38.removals last campaign by the Member for Uxbridge, air quality in parts

:11:39. > :11:46.of the capital is not what we would desire and it must be improved. I do

:11:47. > :11:52.note that the Davis commission treated this seriously, I

:11:53. > :11:56.recognise, it was the points around the M4 and the M25 that the most

:11:57. > :12:03.troublesome and I understand there are practical solutions that can be

:12:04. > :12:06.made in terms of improving air commission. I thank the Davis

:12:07. > :12:10.commission to their convincing and thorough report and I look forward

:12:11. > :12:19.to the government response. If we can shave a minute of each of the

:12:20. > :12:23.front benches. I will try not to use my five minutes to give the front

:12:24. > :12:27.bench is time to do what they need to do but I would like to make some

:12:28. > :12:32.comments around competition and markets and this weird belief we

:12:33. > :12:38.have that somehow Heathrow Airport Limited, a private limited company,

:12:39. > :12:42.owned 100% by overseas shareholders, is still part of our National

:12:43. > :12:48.stakeholder infrastructure. It may form part of that function but it is

:12:49. > :12:54.not a state-owned enterprise. First a quick word on noise. Heathrow at

:12:55. > :13:00.the moment is the noisiest airport in Europe. 68 times more people are

:13:01. > :13:05.affected by noise around Heathrow, south-west London, Berkshire, than

:13:06. > :13:16.are affected by Gatwick. Even if the Davis commission assumptions are

:13:17. > :13:24.correct and we can look forward 60 years, 27 times more people are

:13:25. > :13:30.affected by an expansion at Heathrow than an expansion at Gatwick.

:13:31. > :13:35.Heathrow Airport Limited is a privately owned company and I thank

:13:36. > :13:38.the Minister for his question about the infrastructure required directly

:13:39. > :13:41.as a result of expansion, the government have said they will not

:13:42. > :13:47.be spending taxpayers money on this and if they were it will probably be

:13:48. > :13:51.?15 billion or ?20 billion with a subsidy to a private company from

:13:52. > :13:59.every person in the UK, so I am glad that is not happening, but Heathrow

:14:00. > :14:02.seem to think, hang on, the taxpayer should subsidise us. It is not

:14:03. > :14:06.accept the ball and I don't think the public would accept that. If we

:14:07. > :14:12.do decide on Heathrow, and I hope we don't because I don't think it is in

:14:13. > :14:18.anyone's interest, but if we did what we would do is further interest

:14:19. > :14:23.and existing market dominant player. In this side of the House and

:14:24. > :14:28.probably most sides that is not the kind of monopolistic practice we

:14:29. > :14:33.should be in trenching. Let's look at the economics of it. At the

:14:34. > :14:40.moment it already costs ?26 per passenger to land at Heathrow. It is

:14:41. > :14:45.not that competitive. At Gatwick it is when we look at the cost of the

:14:46. > :14:53.new runway, either at Gatwick for Heath Road, we suddenly find that it

:14:54. > :15:02.is about 30 bed -- ?30 per passenger when around the rest of Europe it is

:15:03. > :15:04.around ?18 to ?20. Let's not assume that an extra runway will be

:15:05. > :15:09.cost-effective or economically beneficial. When it comes to

:15:10. > :15:13.competition I certainly know on this side of the House that we don't wish

:15:14. > :15:19.to entrench semi-monopolies, but let's look at the evidence. When

:15:20. > :15:26.Gatwick put on a flight to Moscow the price structure from 700 --

:15:27. > :15:34.several hundred pounds down to 350. You may argue that business people

:15:35. > :15:37.are desperate for expansion at Heathrow. Utter nonsense. What CEOs

:15:38. > :15:42.are interested in is being able to get on a flight and get where they

:15:43. > :15:48.want to go. Wherever the prices are lowest and the connection quickest,

:15:49. > :15:53.that is where they will choose. I just come back to this point about

:15:54. > :15:58.projecting 60 years hence because we can't predict the weather tomorrow,

:15:59. > :16:01.the idea that economically we can protect the consequences of a

:16:02. > :16:07.decision on Heathrow 60 years hence is quite the Czar and I quote the

:16:08. > :16:20.former director of the IFS, who rubbished the hotel methodology. --

:16:21. > :16:25.quite bizarre. To guess even which routes airports will choose over the

:16:26. > :16:30.next 60 years is not possible. It seems the judgment we need to make

:16:31. > :16:32.today is also about the type of model that future aviation will

:16:33. > :16:42.undertake. We keep talking about this concert -- concept of a hub.

:16:43. > :16:44.British airways, Heathrow Airport Limited and the ministers

:16:45. > :16:53.surrounding this, I spoke to them and asked them what constitutes a

:16:54. > :17:00.hub, show me a model. The model hasn't been forthcoming. Even if we

:17:01. > :17:07.do require a hub, which we do have at them at with two runways, nobody

:17:08. > :17:09.is arguing Heathrow should close. The two runway hub will continue

:17:10. > :17:26.with more modern forms of transport. Is the issue that will not go away.

:17:27. > :17:31.Ever since I got elected to this parliament, people want to know what

:17:32. > :17:37.we think, what will happen and it is not the issue of Scottish

:17:38. > :17:42.independence, it is the second runway at Heathrow or Gatwick. I

:17:43. > :17:49.will begin by contractually team the honourable lady for two can for

:17:50. > :17:53.securing this debate. -- congratulating. She is a credit to

:17:54. > :18:00.her constituents. She focused on economic issues, on issues

:18:01. > :18:03.surrounding sound and issues surrounding the environment and I

:18:04. > :18:08.thought she spoke very well as she moved her case. I cannot mention all

:18:09. > :18:13.speakers who have contributed but there are a few I would like to

:18:14. > :18:26.focus on. It would be remiss of me not to begin with the two honourable

:18:27. > :18:32.gentleman. It is the second Mayall hustings I have sat, having done so

:18:33. > :18:37.previously in a debate on London taxis in Westminster Hall and I

:18:38. > :18:41.expect that both tents and we'll be debating this issue for some time

:18:42. > :18:45.over the coming months but they highlighted a number of concerns

:18:46. > :18:48.with the report and it is obvious from the statements they made that

:18:49. > :18:52.they are both equally passionate for London and I wish them both well as

:18:53. > :18:58.they seek to deal with this in more detail. During the honourable

:18:59. > :19:05.gentleman's remarks, the most amazing thing occurred, the

:19:06. > :19:12.honourable gentleman for Dudley came out as an ally for the Scottish

:19:13. > :19:20.National Party. He used the line, why is it all about London? That is

:19:21. > :19:25.the point that we come from, that while we understand that London is

:19:26. > :19:32.Scotland's process global financial hub, whether Scotland is part of the

:19:33. > :19:36.UK or not, we must not lose sight of issues surrounding regional airports

:19:37. > :19:45.which are returned to. -- which I will return to. The honourable lady

:19:46. > :19:51.raised some serious concerns from her constituents and did so in an

:19:52. > :19:55.excellent fashion, like the honourable gentleman from Saffron

:19:56. > :20:00.Walden who I met on my first day in this house and he gave me a few tips

:20:01. > :20:06.on how to deal with some of the members, he used the line in his

:20:07. > :20:11.statement, he said Stansted will be engraved onto his heart. I will

:20:12. > :20:16.avoid because it is indeed the obvious joke about Tories having

:20:17. > :20:20.hearts but he gave a very thorough and historic analysis of the wider

:20:21. > :20:26.airport expansion debate and the debate we have had this afternoon is

:20:27. > :20:34.all be better for it. My honourable friend who has had to leave early

:20:35. > :20:38.stands up for and praises crosscut airport which I think is becoming my

:20:39. > :20:44.second home over the last six months, which I am assured the whole

:20:45. > :20:50.chamber will wish to join the in congratulating being crowned UK

:20:51. > :20:53.airport of the year and he rightly asks the government and I hope the

:20:54. > :20:57.Minister will do this in his remarks in closing, he asked the government

:20:58. > :21:03.to clear up any confusion as to whether or not this will be deemed

:21:04. > :21:07.as an English only matter. The honourable gentleman for Chelmsford

:21:08. > :21:13.who gave us new members the induction in this very room when we

:21:14. > :21:17.were first elected gave an excellent speech and he illustrated the

:21:18. > :21:22.frustration which is clear from all sides of the house which plagues

:21:23. > :21:28.this whole issue. He did it in an authoritative manner, of course as a

:21:29. > :21:36.former transport minister himself. The honourable gentleman for Arundel

:21:37. > :21:40.and South Downs really against spoke with authority and demanded that we

:21:41. > :21:45.treat this as a national issue and that that should be what guides us

:21:46. > :21:49.as opposed to local concerns, but I have to say that local concerns must

:21:50. > :21:54.be given consideration although I would agree it is an issue of

:21:55. > :21:59.national importance. It was over this very issue that the current

:22:00. > :22:05.Shadow Chancellor once protested in this chamber using the mace that

:22:06. > :22:10.stands before us and while we may be the noble savages, I have no

:22:11. > :22:17.ambition to do so this evening. We will hear Labour's remarks in a few

:22:18. > :22:21.moments time but I want to give some comfort to the Shadow Chancellor who

:22:22. > :22:28.unfortunately is not here this evening, but I found a quote from

:22:29. > :22:31.one Chairman Mao who once said, to rebel is justified. The honourable

:22:32. > :22:38.gentleman of the Treasury bench still has his copy of the book. The

:22:39. > :22:43.honourable gentleman for Oxbridge, where to begin? He spoke with his

:22:44. > :22:50.usual passion and authority in a good nature but rather surprisingly,

:22:51. > :22:55.I am delighted he believes -- agrees with us that this is not only an

:22:56. > :23:00.English matter and he has aligned himself with the interests of the

:23:01. > :23:04.Scottish National Party as far as this debate is concerned and for

:23:05. > :23:15.that we are grateful. My fellow transport committee member is

:23:16. > :23:21.normally a member from the south of the border rather than the North but

:23:22. > :23:27.he is a strong supporter of Blackpool Airport in his

:23:28. > :23:30.constituency. He did so today. He again mentioned the importance of

:23:31. > :23:35.securing regional connectivity and that is something I think the

:23:36. > :23:39.government could do and something we will be pressing for through public

:23:40. > :23:43.service obligations and I would be grateful if the Minister would

:23:44. > :23:47.address that this evening, because that is not just a concern for us in

:23:48. > :23:52.Scotland but in other parts of England such as the north-east as

:23:53. > :23:57.well. The Scottish Government earlier this year in its programme

:23:58. > :24:01.for government announced the setup of three innovation and investment

:24:02. > :24:07.centres across Europe, one in Brussels, one in Dublin and one in

:24:08. > :24:10.London. That gives Scottish businesses an opportunity to do

:24:11. > :24:16.business on a world stage which we have not always been good at but

:24:17. > :24:21.that gives us an opportunity to do that here in London. It is our

:24:22. > :24:27.closest major financial centre and this decision is one we will analyse

:24:28. > :24:31.forensically. At the room at we remain agnostic and we seek to get

:24:32. > :24:40.the best possible deal for Scotland but give the station is there and

:24:41. > :24:43.the government must make a decision. Can I congratulate the honourable

:24:44. > :24:47.member for token for securing the debate and thank the back bench

:24:48. > :25:02.business committee for allowing it to happen. All the members who have

:25:03. > :25:13.spoken, I thank. I think it came out 12 against Heathrow antenna broadly

:25:14. > :25:20.pro-Heathrow. One mentioned for the honourable member for Richmond Park

:25:21. > :25:29.and the one for tooting who will be debating this issue a lot. I look

:25:30. > :25:37.forward to what is said. I hope to hear from the Transport Secretary.

:25:38. > :25:42.We would have appreciated a report back to day but it looks like we

:25:43. > :25:46.will have to wait for that one. The aviation sector is the key pillar of

:25:47. > :25:51.our economy but I hope the house will forgive me as I just say

:25:52. > :25:56.something else, which is it is an industry that makes our world a

:25:57. > :26:00.smaller place. It fosters direct face to face understanding between

:26:01. > :26:05.people across the globe in no way no other industry or mode of travel

:26:06. > :26:09.ever has, and it is for those reasons that aviation is a central

:26:10. > :26:14.target for those who want to kill and terror rise, to undermine that

:26:15. > :26:19.understanding and to spread fear amongst anyone going about their

:26:20. > :26:24.daily lives. We were reminded about that in the Sharma was shaped

:26:25. > :26:28.tragedy just a few weeks ago and it underlines why the decisions that

:26:29. > :26:33.Parliament was wrestling with this morning are not only provide for our

:26:34. > :26:37.country as a whole but particularly those working in aviation and it is

:26:38. > :26:42.why we pay tribute today to all those who work in the civil aviation

:26:43. > :26:49.sector, on the ground and in the air. As I said, aviation is an

:26:50. > :26:55.industry vital to the economy. ?50 million in GDP, about 1 million jobs

:26:56. > :27:04.related to aviation and about 8 million in tax revenue. We also know

:27:05. > :27:11.that aviation accounts for around 6% of the UK's greenhouse gas emissions

:27:12. > :27:17.and there are issues of noise and although the false wagon emissions

:27:18. > :27:23.scandal originated in automotive innovation, people are demanding

:27:24. > :27:28.transparency in air quality commissions also. That's why the

:27:29. > :27:39.work is important, bringing together airlines, airports, aircraft

:27:40. > :27:46.manufacturers and unions. The introduction and development of

:27:47. > :27:50.sustainable few would make a major contribution to reducing emissions.

:27:51. > :27:54.Aircraft technology, we have heard of the new, lighter aircraft

:27:55. > :28:01.possibly taking new long haul flights, new initiatives in airspace

:28:02. > :28:06.managing, airports also, even though they have seen passenger numbers

:28:07. > :28:11.increased by more than 5%, their carbon footprint has fallen by

:28:12. > :28:17.almost 3%. Continuing and aviation agenda is fundamentally important to

:28:18. > :28:22.jobs and skills in the UK. Turning to the issue of airport capacity,

:28:23. > :28:28.the ministers promised a response before Christmas and we await to see

:28:29. > :28:31.what the minister has to say. Our job as the opposition is to

:28:32. > :28:37.scrutinise that response and we have been clear about the four tests are

:28:38. > :28:44.guests which we will measure it. -- against. Two of those are about the

:28:45. > :28:48.environmental challenges put forward for an additional runway capacity

:28:49. > :28:54.either at Heathrow or Gatwick. Howell for the UK's climate change

:28:55. > :28:57.obligations can still be met and how local noise and environment impact

:28:58. > :29:05.can be managed and mineralised. Davies said the expansion of

:29:06. > :29:15.Heathrow had to be contingent on the latter being addressed. --

:29:16. > :29:18.minimalise. Davies himself emphasised the choices that

:29:19. > :29:23.government make will make the difference to what can be achieved.

:29:24. > :29:26.For example or noise, airports need to know whether the framework is to

:29:27. > :29:32.concentrate noise geographically or whether it is about dispersing it

:29:33. > :29:37.and what ever it decides, why cannot the government agreed in principle

:29:38. > :29:42.to decommission's proposal for an independent aviation noise authority

:29:43. > :29:46.with statutory consultation rights? And for the expansion of Gatwick or

:29:47. > :29:54.Heathrow to help rather than hinder, the UK meeting our carbon or air

:29:55. > :30:00.quality targets, that requires a big shift, greater numbers of people

:30:01. > :30:04.travelling, that has to be transformed so my first question is

:30:05. > :30:09.what will be the actions it will take to ensure its conclusions on

:30:10. > :30:15.airport expansion are compatible with our environmental obligations?

:30:16. > :30:19.Our other tests are looking at clear answers from the government on what

:30:20. > :30:24.they decide on Davies and how they will meet the capacity challenge.

:30:25. > :30:28.Capacity in the South East needs reviewing and that's why Labour

:30:29. > :30:32.supported the establishment of the commission but there are very

:30:33. > :30:36.different answers from Heathrow, Gatwick and others about the kind of

:30:37. > :30:42.capacity needed and how them that informs the decision of if and where

:30:43. > :30:45.a new runway. What are the government's conclusions about the

:30:46. > :30:52.differing decisions that differing decisions will have on short-haul

:30:53. > :30:55.capacity, long haul capacity, regional air connectivity, transfer

:30:56. > :31:00.traffic and the growth of point-to-point and have traffic?

:31:01. > :31:04.That brings me to Labour's fourth test that we asked the Minister to

:31:05. > :31:11.address. This cannot be an issue simply about how the air travel

:31:12. > :31:14.services serve well all badly the south-east. The issue of

:31:15. > :31:21.connectivity to other parts of the UK is vital as is seen this as an

:31:22. > :31:26.opportunity for rebalancing growth across the regions and while they

:31:27. > :31:30.crashed in of a new one-way is a key decision for UK aviation, it is not

:31:31. > :31:37.the only one and whatever the decision made, it will take eight,

:31:38. > :31:38.nine, ten years to implement, longer probably if there are legal

:31:39. > :31:46.challenges. Members Aviation

:31:47. > :31:53.will not stand still during that time. This misses will still need

:31:54. > :32:01.new routes to compete with existing and emerging markets, new aircraft

:32:02. > :32:05.will offer new possibilities for the economic civics banned a point to

:32:06. > :32:10.point travel, and if we are serious about rebalancing our economy we

:32:11. > :32:14.must make sure those routes are not simply dependent on what happens in

:32:15. > :32:21.the south-east. Birmingham, Manchester, East Midlands are

:32:22. > :32:26.international gateways to the UK and deserve to be treated as such. Will

:32:27. > :32:32.the Minister put the upgrading of the West Anglia lines in the next

:32:33. > :32:35.rail control investment period to allow, for example, Stansted to

:32:36. > :32:39.achieve its potential in the south-east? Will he confirm that

:32:40. > :32:46.Manchester Airport will be linked directly to HS2 and having accepted

:32:47. > :32:51.Labour's plan for a national infrastructure commission will he

:32:52. > :32:55.endorsed the plan for it to examine the long-term road and rail needs of

:32:56. > :33:00.airport and other transport gateways throughout the country, not simply

:33:01. > :33:05.the south-east, and when can we expect the promised review of the

:33:06. > :33:09.future of passenger duty in terms of its purpose and how options to

:33:10. > :33:12.reform it can improve competitiveness at different

:33:13. > :33:20.airports and their devolved environment? Let me congratulate my

:33:21. > :33:22.honourable friend the member is for Twickenham and Richmond Park and

:33:23. > :33:29.also the honourable member for Brentford and I is all worth, my

:33:30. > :33:32.long-time cycling partner, and the backbench business committee for

:33:33. > :33:36.securing this debate. We have heard some remarkable and passionate

:33:37. > :33:43.speeches and I look forward to the mayoral hustings next year. In

:33:44. > :33:48.contrast I think my speech will be unremarkable because at this point

:33:49. > :33:51.in the process the government is engaged in a dispassionate,

:33:52. > :33:59.clear-headed analysis of the Davis report. We set out to take a fresh,

:34:00. > :34:12.independent and competence of look at current and future aviation

:34:13. > :34:16.needs. Davies's work looks at how to improve our infrastructure including

:34:17. > :34:21.in the regions. It is a subject of immense importance to the country

:34:22. > :34:26.and to many of our constituents. I am grateful to everybody who has

:34:27. > :34:31.contributed to an excellent debate. The UK aviation industry employs

:34:32. > :34:34.around 230,000 people directly and many more indirectly, for example in

:34:35. > :34:43.the supply chain. Tax revenues from the industry are ?8.7 billion a year

:34:44. > :34:53.and are freight carries goods worth over ?100 billion a year, more than

:34:54. > :34:56.40% of non-EU trade by value. That is -- what is often overlooked is

:34:57. > :35:03.that we are incredibly well connected. We have -- the number of

:35:04. > :35:08.passengers using non-London airports has increased by over a third since

:35:09. > :35:20.the year 2000 and London remains one of the world? Best connected cities,

:35:21. > :35:25.with weekly or more often -- Air Canada activities one of the major

:35:26. > :35:29.reasons why three quarters of 4500 companies have offices in London.

:35:30. > :35:35.The restraints we have seen today are in fact a symptom of Britain's

:35:36. > :35:40.success, the aviation industry's success in attracting new business,

:35:41. > :35:43.therefore maintaining UK and international connectivity is

:35:44. > :35:48.important if we have to remain growing as an economy and we are

:35:49. > :35:54.focusing on a wide range of issues, not only capacity, that supports the

:35:55. > :35:59.aviation sector. Airspace is a critical part of our infrastructure

:36:00. > :36:02.so it is vital we work to increase capacity, improve safety and

:36:03. > :36:08.mitigate the impact on the environment. The CAA's future

:36:09. > :36:12.airspace strategy is designed to do this and the government support for

:36:13. > :36:19.this initiative. The government is offering support to airports for

:36:20. > :36:22.improving service access. The Airports Commission worked for two

:36:23. > :36:27.and a half year and consulted widely before coming to its conclusions. As

:36:28. > :36:32.we are all aware it recommended that additional runway capacity is needed

:36:33. > :36:37.in the south of England and the optimal solution was that this

:36:38. > :36:42.should take the form of a new Northwest runway at Heathrow. It

:36:43. > :36:47.also recommended a package of mitigation measures including a

:36:48. > :36:50.night flight ban, noise levy and the community engagement board to name a

:36:51. > :36:55.few. The fullness of mitigation measures is on page ten and 11 of

:36:56. > :36:58.the report. The government has been reviewing the findings of the

:36:59. > :37:08.report, though we have yet to make any decision. I now tend to address

:37:09. > :37:13.the key points raised today why a number of members. -- by a number. A

:37:14. > :37:19.number of colleagues were critical of the airport commission report.

:37:20. > :37:23.The department has received a number of presentations critical of a

:37:24. > :37:29.number of issues in the report, including air quality, noise,

:37:30. > :37:32.service access, economic benefits, deliverability, financing and

:37:33. > :37:37.capacity and connectivity. We have been taking into account the matters

:37:38. > :37:43.raised as part of a wide -- wider programme of work considering the

:37:44. > :37:46.recommendations. We content -- we continue to consider whether the

:37:47. > :37:50.issues expressed have already been considered why the Airports

:37:51. > :37:54.Commission or affect the overall ballad of the of the

:37:55. > :37:57.recommendations. The issue of noise of course is very contentious and

:37:58. > :38:02.the commission is taking into account the noise impacts for each

:38:03. > :38:05.scheme, including potential mitigations. We also need to

:38:06. > :38:11.recognise that aircraft are becoming less noisy and more fuel efficient,

:38:12. > :38:14.particularly those who adopted Rolls-Royce engines. We understand

:38:15. > :38:21.the concerns of local communities about noise and we have carefully

:38:22. > :38:26.examined the evidence provided by the Airports Commission including

:38:27. > :38:30.potential mitigation issues. The government takes the issue of air

:38:31. > :38:36.quality very seriously. It is a complex issue and indeed DEFRA have

:38:37. > :38:42.just consulted on their draft action plan. As we know of course from the

:38:43. > :38:46.discussion we have had over Volkswagen, we have a number of

:38:47. > :38:51.issues in connection with other transport modes which impact on air

:38:52. > :38:55.quality and many of the robins around major airports are as much

:38:56. > :39:01.due to traffic around the airports as aviation itself. We are carrying

:39:02. > :39:04.out a detailed analysis of the Airports Commission report and any

:39:05. > :39:08.decision regarding future airport capacity will take into account the

:39:09. > :39:13.overall government plan to improve air quality and its commitment to

:39:14. > :39:19.comply with European union air quality standards. The honourable

:39:20. > :39:24.member for Ealing specifically raised the issue of CO2 emissions.

:39:25. > :39:28.The government takes UK climate change commitments very seriously

:39:29. > :39:31.and is committed to meeting them. The commission engaged with the

:39:32. > :39:35.Committee on Climate Change when undertaking its extensive work on

:39:36. > :39:42.greenhouse gas emissions, including the impact of expansion under two

:39:43. > :39:45.different Wallasey networks. The government is examining the evidence

:39:46. > :39:50.and any future decision about capacity will take into account the

:39:51. > :39:56.UK climate change policy and our obligations. I am hope we can get

:39:57. > :40:00.global agreement on a global marketplace mechanism for trading

:40:01. > :40:03.carbon, which will be the ultimate goal to ensure that aviation plays

:40:04. > :40:09.its part in reducing carbon emissions. In terms of the

:40:10. > :40:16.mitigation measures package, the members for Twickenham and Brentford

:40:17. > :40:19.raised these, the airport commission recommended that should the Heathrow

:40:20. > :40:24.Northwest runway scheme be taken forward the package of measures to

:40:25. > :40:26.be put in place to limit the impacts of expansion on communities

:40:27. > :40:32.including the introduction of a noise envelope, a ban on night

:40:33. > :40:37.flights between 11:30pm and 6am and a commitment that no fourth runway

:40:38. > :40:41.will be taken forward at Heathrow. We will ensure that if the decision

:40:42. > :40:47.is that there is a need for additional capacity and that there

:40:48. > :40:51.should be a new runway whatever its location there should be a package

:40:52. > :40:56.of measures to balance that in the interests of communities. I haven't

:40:57. > :41:01.been able to touch on every point raised in the debate but many of the

:41:02. > :41:04.issues raised today are the priorities and concerns of the

:41:05. > :41:08.government. Could I thank all of those who contributed to this

:41:09. > :41:13.excellent debate. We live in an ever-changing world and we have to

:41:14. > :41:19.get this decision right, recognising its impact. We have heard a wide

:41:20. > :41:26.range of views representing a wide range of people and we don't have

:41:27. > :41:28.want to hide the challenge of airport expansion. The Davies

:41:29. > :41:41.Commission has earned its right to close scrutiny and discussion. May I

:41:42. > :41:46.thank every member of the House who has contributed to this debate, it

:41:47. > :41:50.is a matter of national interest, I thank the Scottish colleagues in

:41:51. > :41:56.particular. I thank the Secretary of State for taking time from his busy

:41:57. > :42:00.schedule to listen to our debate. Yes, the aviation industry in the UK

:42:01. > :42:05.is very important to our economy. I would point out, though, what the

:42:06. > :42:14.Member for Saffron Walden has said, were the Davies Commission ruins its

:42:15. > :42:20.own logic. -- were. I thank the Minister for saying airport

:42:21. > :42:25.connectivity is important and all of the members who talked about

:42:26. > :42:29.regional connectivity. I greatly appreciate what the Minister said

:42:30. > :42:34.about mitigation measures for the Southeast but what I would ask him,

:42:35. > :42:38.like many other members of this House, is if they can be done for a

:42:39. > :42:44.third runway please can you do it for the two one -- runways extant

:42:45. > :42:53.because it is not tolerable and a quasi night ban is not enough. If we

:42:54. > :43:01.all going to attack climate change and the an international climate

:43:02. > :43:09.change industry leader we have to be at the higher levels. I absolutely

:43:10. > :43:14.agree this is a long-term programme, whatever option the government

:43:15. > :43:19.chooses, and in the meantime we have to think about our capacity right

:43:20. > :43:23.now. I thank all of the honourable members and members of the House who

:43:24. > :43:30.have contributed, I would remind the government of the promise made in

:43:31. > :43:36.2009, no ifs, no buts, no third runway. Thank you. The question is

:43:37. > :43:39.that this House has considered the final report of the Airports

:43:40. > :43:48.Commission. As many as are of the opinion, say "aye". To the contrary,

:43:49. > :43:54."no". The ayes... I have never heard such enthusiasm for the end of a

:43:55. > :43:59.debate after such a lively debate. As many as are of the opinion, say

:44:00. > :44:03."aye". To the contrary, "no". The ayes have it, the ayes have it.