SSE NEWS ARCHIVE - December 2003

The White Paper was a disappointment to us all, but the policies proposed are unsustainable. So- thought, work, and action must continue for as long as it takes.

It was with great sadness that we learnt of the death of Peter Carter-Ruck, who has done so much to help the battle against Stansted expansion. He will be missed by all.

His death was fully reported in the National press, here is the announcement from the Essex - wide East Anglian Times:-

Libel lawyer dies

December 22, 2003 00:16

LIBEL lawyer Peter Carter-Ruck has died aged 89, his daughter said.

Julie Scott-Bayfield said her father passed away peacefully in his sleep on Friday night after a short illness.

Mr Carter-Ruck's legal battles with satirical magazine Private Eye and various national newspapers on behalf of a string of A-list clients made him an iconic figure in Fleet Street, where he was both dreaded and respected.

In his time he represented stars and public figures including Laurence Olivier, Spike Milligan, Harold Wilson, Cary Grant, Lucian Freud, and Cecil Parkinson.

He set up Peter Carter-Ruck and Partners in 1982 but retired as a partner in 1996.

Andrew Stephenson, senior partner at the firm, today paid tribute to him as a man of "great charm" with a dry sense of humour who was devoted to his family and his work.

"It's very sad for us all," Mr Stephenson said.

"I worked very closely with him for many years and learnt a great deal from him. He always set the highest standards in terms of the service he gave to clients."

"It really was an outstanding example of how to conduct litigation."

He added: "When he was working with clients in stressful situations he had the ability to see the funny side." "That made it a pleasure to work with him."

He said Mr Carter-Ruck, who died at his home in Great Hallingbury, Essex, had a "kind of love-hate relationship" with Private Eye despite his repeated legal success against the satirical magazine.

"Underlying it was a great deal of respect for him and his work," Mr Stephenson said.

Mr Carter-Ruck's wife Ann died around a year ago.

"They were devoted to each and I'm sure that was a great loss," said Mr Stephenson.

"I know it was very difficult for him."

In recent years Mr Carter-Ruck had devoted much of his time to the campaign to stop the expansion of nearby Stansted airport.

The Government announced earlier this week that it was backing plans for a new runway at airport by 2011 or 2012.

More Local Press notices:

FROM THE EAST ANGLIAN TIMES.

New runway would destroy rich heritage

December 24, 2003 05:48

By Roddy Ashworth

A PRESERVATION group has warned the proposed expansion of Stansted Airport would lead to the destruction of historic buildings and sites on an "unprecedented scale".

But a spokesman for the airport said where possible, important listed properties would be dismantled and rebuilt outside the new boundaries.

The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings said in choosing Stansted Airport for the first phase of airport expansion in the South-East, the Government had chosen the option that would cause the maximum damage to the country's heritage.

It warned allowing a new runway to be built at the Essex airport would lead to the destruction of 29 listed buildings and two scheduled monuments - Waltham Manor and The Grange.

A society spokesman said: "Though the precise siting of the runway will be up to the airport operator, the Government recognises that it will severely damage the historic environment.

"The area around Stansted is rich in architectural history, including small historic villages. Merely stating that these characteristics should be preserved as much as possible is meaningless in the light of the widespread development that will follow the airport's expansion."

English Heritage chief executive, Simon Thurley, echoed the society's view and warned: "The expansion of Stansted will have a serious effect on local heritage.

"This will be directly through the loss of historic buildings and archaeology, but also indirectly and in the longer term through the loss of overall amenity of historic towns and villages.

"The damage will not just be caused by the new runway itself, but also by the associated infrastructure and development."

He added: "We remain concerned about the apparent absence of systematic measures to manage demand for future air travel.

"We will continue to press for the maximum protection possible. Heritage is not just about visible buildings and scheduled monuments, but also the whole of the historic landscape and buried archaeology."

A Stansted Airport spokesman said dismantling and rebuilding was an option for some of the buildings.

"When the original terminal was built, nine buildings were dismantled and reassembled," he added.

"It is too early to be precise about what will happen. But where possible, and where required, we will look at moving listed properties. That is a clear and stated intention.

"It is still not 100% certain what the exact land take will be, but the hard work has now begun in terms of the detail."

Legal challenges planned for runway

December 22, 2003 00:15

East Anglian Times.

AS the reality of a second runway at Stansted sinks in, pressure groups and councils across Essex are now exploring every legal avenue to scupper the plans.

The Stop Stansted Expansion campaign (SSE) has stated it is ready for court action and to challenge the content of the aviation White Paper.

It is committed to pursuing a challenge to a second Stansted runway through legal, regulatory and planning routes, notably the UK and European courts and authorities, as well as the European Commission.

"The phoney war is over and now the real battle begins," said chairman Norman Mead.

A spokesman said: "SSE is ready for court action on other fronts, too, and stands ready to challenge the content of the White Paper in other ways."

Areas the campaign will be studying will include possible breaches of the EU air quality directive; the fact major expansion of Stansted Airport has already been considered by two separate public inquiries and a Royal Commission – and always rejected because environmental costs greatly outweighed the benefits; complaining to the Competition Authorities in the UK and in the EU on the grounds BAA has a dominant position in the operation of airports in the south east and is abusing its market dominance; or a judicial review.

Many legislative constraints and other challenges would have to be overcome before a new runway could be built at Stansted and there would inevitably be a public inquiry to examine any application in detail.

A campaign spokesman said: "What is clear, however, is that surface access and air quality issues would be a major barrier to early development of an additional runway at Stansted.

"Similarly, legal challenges on competition grounds are likely to be pursued both by SSE and the aviation industry itself which would be very likely to prevent such development."

Essex County Council is also currently examining the possibility of court action.

Tory leader Lord Hanningfield said: "We will be consulting lawyers to examine the possibility of mounting a legal challenge to this proposal. "The spacing of the proposed runway is particularly worrying. Its proposed location maximizes the blight on the local environment and residents while taking as much space as possible to allow for further runways to be added without acquiring more land.

"The case for expansion is far from proven and, perhaps more importantly, the airline industry simply does not seem to want expansion at Stansted."

Also employing experts to sift through the paperwork to find any possible legal loopholes is Uttlesford District Council – the authority which will ultimately deal with the runway planning application. Liberal Democrat leader Alan Dean said: "Stansted remains the subject of expansion speculation and the council is prepared to fight on behalf of its residents, their quality of life and the region's heritage."

Also at odds with his party over the expansion plans is Braintree MP Alan Hurst.

He said: "I'm very disappointed as I'm sure many people are in north-west Essex. But we may have lost the first round but there are many more rounds to go.

"There is just no economic case for an extra runway and I do not think it will ever be built because the aircraft industry does not want it and they have to pay for it, not the Government."

Harlow MP, Bill Ramell, writes to one of his constituents.

17th December 2003

I am writing to you as someone who has previously contacted me to express concern about the possible runway expansion at Stansted Airport.

As you will be aware, the Transport Secretary, Alastair Darling MP, yesterday published "The Future of Aviation" White Paper setting out a thirty year policy framework for aviation development across the country.

I am disappointed that the Government has decided that the preferred site for the first new airport runway in the south-east should be at Stansted, but I am also relieved because frankly the decision could have been an awful lot worse. We were facing a real possibility that two or even three additional runways would be built at Stansted and that will not now  happen. The Government has accepted our arguments that expansion on this scale would have an appalling and unacceptable impact.

The White Paper also shows that the Government has taken on board the key concerns that l and many campaigners have been lobbying on with regard to sustainability, the environment and noise pollution. Rather than the massive expansion in the south-east many of us feared, the Government has made clear that it is looking for more limited expansion in the south-east coupled with greater use of regional airports such as Bristol and Birmingham, as I pressed for in my meetings with Ministers.

The Transport Secretary's statement in the House of Commons yesterday also made clear that the Government is prepared to legislate to strengthen the regulations governing noise pollution and will penalise airlines for the continued use of noisy aircraft.

Additional new measures to minimise environmental and noise pollution can have an impact. At Stansted for example, measures to restrict noise pollution have already made a difference, for whilst the number of passengers using the airport each year has grown from 7 million five years ago to 19 million this year, the number of people in the local area affected by aircraft noise has reduced by 70%.

I am therefore seeking meetings in the New Year with both Alastair Darling and the Environment Secretary, Margaret Beckett MP, to discuss the kind of robust measures that will need to be in place prior to the building of any new runway at Stansted by 2011/2012, in order to protect both our quality of life and the environment. I will also be raising with the Transport Secretary the transport infrastructure requirements, particularly in relation to upgrading the railway line, that will be needed as a result of one extra runway. Rest assured I will do all I can to press for the most stringent measures.

I would like to stress that yesterday's decision is not the end of the road. The White Paper itself cannot authorise specific site expansion because the Government does not build runways, it merely sets out the preferred policy framework. Any proposal to build a new runway will be made by the airport operators who must submit their plans to the relevant local authority. These plans will then be subject to normal planning procedures. There will therefore be future opportunities for you as a local resident to continue to register your concerns about any further runway expansion at Stansted, should you wish to do so.

In the meantime, I will of course be in touch again in the New Year to update you on my discussions with Ministers. Yours sincerely,

Bill Rammell MP.

Comment
Dare we suggest he is trying to keep a foot in both camps?  Can his constituents direct his attention to thethe  comments of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution? (RCEP Response to the White paper.) The Labour Government cannot keep its promises on climate change and expand aviation by the amount proposed.

DISMAY AT SPINELESS GOVERNMENT - 16 December 2003

Today’s decision by the government to fudge the issue over another runway at Stansted was greeted with utter dismay by Uttlesford District Council.

In conjunction with the Stop Stansted Expansion group, the Council has lobbied on behalf of tens of thousands of local residents to ensure the Department for Transport does not allow for another runway at Stansted Airport.

However the Department for Transport has done nothing to resolve the issue when it gave the ultimate decision for either building at Stansted or any other airport in the South East to BAA.

Cllr Alan Dean, Liberal Democrat Leader of Uttlesford District Council is determined to continue the battle.

“Stansted remains the subject of expansion speculation and the Council is prepared to fight on behalf of its residents,their quality of life and the region’s heritage.

“This decision means further years of uncertainty and blight to the residents of Uttlesford. We will maintain our stance on opposing any new runways at Stansted.

“The grounds for our opposition are based on sound economic, environmental and transport arguments. We’re appalled that the government has deemed to ignore this. We will continue to fight if any company is reckless enough to try to pour good money after bad into the green fields of Essex

“We will not stand idly by while the threat of bulldozers, ready to knock down listed buildings and destroy the classic English countryside lingers.

“All I can say to anyone who tries to build a runway at Stansted: Whatever you say, whatever you do, we’ll be fighting you every inch of the way.”

STATEMENT FROM ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL - 16 December 2003

Stansted expansion plans are 'unwanted'

Lord Hanningfield, Leader of Essex County Council has criticised today's proposal to develop a new runway at Stansted Airport as "unwanted and unworkable".

The only real result of today’s announcement,” said Lord Hanningfield, “is that thousands of homes in Essex and Hertfordshire are now blighted until the proposal for expansion at Stansted is dead and buried.

“If central government thinks that Stansted is the site of least resistance they will soon be disabused of that notion. We will be consulting lawyers over coming days to examine the possibility of mounting a legal challenge to this proposal.

“The spacing of the proposed runway is particularly worrying. Its proposed location maximizes the blight on the local environment and residents while taking as much space as possible to allow for further runways to be added without acquiring more land.

“The case for expansion is far from proven and, perhaps more importantly, the airline industry simply does not seem to want expansion at Stansted. The decision to allow expansion at Heathrow makes it even clearer that there is neither demand nor need for another runway at Stansted. It would be extra capacity in the wrong place. We will be working with our neighbouring authorities of Hertfordshire County Council, East Herts District Council and Uttlesford to make this case strongly over the coming months.

“Now the government doesn’t just have a policy of ‘predict and provide’ but also of ‘consult and ignore.’ The airlines don’t want this, environmentalists don’t want it and the people of Essex and Hertfordshire certainly don’t want it.

“The airlines that use Stansted at present are frequently paid to land at airports in continental Europe. They do not have a business model that supports the £4 billion needed to pay for the expansion of Stansted.

“Yesterday saw the opening of the latest stretch of dual carriageway on the A120 - a development designed to cope with the initial development of Stansted 20 years ago. We can only speculate how long it will take to provide the infrastructure the government thinks the larger Stansted will need.”

STATEMENT FROM THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY - 16 December 2003

Labour blights Britain's airport communities

Shadow Transport and Environment Secretary Theresa May has warned that Labour's new aviation strategy will blight the lives of millions of people living near Britain's airports.

She hit out in the Commons after Alistair Darling unveiled a 30 year plan for air travel involving, a new runway at Stansted by 2011, a possible third runway at Heathrow by 2020 if certain conditions are met, and more capacity at Birmingham and Edinburgh.

The Transport Secretary said the plan acknowledged the benefits of increasing air travel while seeking to reduce the impact of airports on surrounding communities.

But Mrs May dismissed the aviation white paper as "a fudge from an incompetent government", and warned that it would deliver blight to millions of people.

She declared: "What the British people and the airport industry want is certainty for the future of aviation, but now they have been condemned to uncertainty."

While airport expansion was a crucial issue, she said the Government's inconsistent approach had demonstrated "real incompetence and lack of judgement".

And warning of the massive impact of a new runway at Stansted will have on already heavily congested road and rail links to the Essex airport, she told conservatives.com: "The proposals for Stansted come at the same time as John Prescott's plans to build thousands more houses on the M11 Stansted corridor - another example of inconsistency in the Government's thinking."

Mrs May added: "The failure to consider how each area will cope with the increased volume of transport and the impact that expansion might have on the environment shows that the Government has failed to demonstrate the joined-up thinking it promised."

She said: "Far from setting a clear way forward for air transport in the UK, this announcement is a fudge which will only deliver blight to millions of people living around airports across this country. Indeed, anyone living around any of the airports in the south east is now faced with endless uncertainty."

THE WOODLAND TRUST - 16 December 2003

Airport White Paper flies in the face of good sense

Ill-placed and unnecessary expansion will damage UK's richest wildlife habitat

Today’s announcement by Alistair Darling that new runways should be built at Stansted and Birmingham and a new terminal at Manchester has angered the Woodland Trust. The Trust has been campaigning to protect the 86 hectares of ancient woodland and ancient trees at Stansted, 22 hectares at Birmingham, 75 hectares at Gatwick and 45 hectares at Manchester that will be destroyed if the expansion goes ahead. Trees have been growing continuously in these woods for at least 400 years and they are our richest habitat for wildlife. They contain more rare and threatened species than any other UK habitat and only cover two percent of the country.
Ed Pomfret of the Woodland Trust says: “The Government is ignoring its own conservation policies and is conveniently forgetting its commitments to protect ancient woodland. If we really are to have a sustainable aviation policy we must manage demand to ensure that we don’t damage this irreplaceable habitat. The proposals in the White Paper reveal fundamental flaws in Government thinking about sustainable development and climate change. Ancient woodland must be protected from these destructive plans.

“Climate change is the biggest threat to biodiversity and the survival of ancient woods. Aviation makes a significant contribution to greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change and demand must be managed to ensure that damage to our environment is reduced.”

The Woodland Trust is the UK's leading woodland conservation charity. It has maintained sustained, long-term opposition to all airport expansion proposals that threaten ancient woodland. Most recently, on Tuesday 9 December, Peter Ainsworth MP presented a petition to Parliament on behalf of the Trust that thousands of opponents of airport expansion signed.

Despite the fact that damaging proposals at Gatwick have been dropped for now, the Trust remains concerned that expansion will be back on the agenda after 2019. Any loss of ancient woodland is unsustainable as it cannot be replaced or compensated for. Ed Pomfret concludes: “In support of planned expansion at Stansted the Government has already approved other massive housing development in the area which will cause even further loss and damage to irreplaceable woods and trees. The South East’s green lungs are being concreted over. Radical preventative medicine is needed immediately.”

For full details of the impact of the expansion proposals on ancient woodland visit www.woodland-trust.org.uk/petition

bmi PRESS STATEMENT - 16 December 2003

bmi welcomes government recognition that Heathrow needs additional runway capacity - airline disappointed that Stansted given priority - any BAA cross subsidy will be challenged

bmi has welcomed the news that the Government recognises the contribution London Heathrow makes to the UK economy and that there is a case for much needed additional capacity. However, the airline has reacted with disappointment that the Government has recommended the building of a new runway at Stansted Airport ahead of Heathrow and believes that this could seriously damage its pre-eminent position as one of the world's leading airports.

In the Government's White Paper, released today, it decided that Stansted should be the preferred option despite calls from the UK's top three airlines that Britain's economic interests would be best served by building a new short runway at London Heathrow Airport.

The Government has suggested that a new runway at Heathrow will not be built until at least 2015 by which time it believes environmental issues will have been addressed. However, the aviation industry is confident that these issues will be addressed well in advance of this date and would expect any Heathrow timetable for development to take this into account

Sir Michael Bishop, chairman of bmi, said: "I am encouraged that the Government has recognized that Heathrow is vital to the South East economy. However, I am disappointed that the Government has not listened to the overwhelming voice of the people, the airline industry, trade unions and the UK's business industry who believe that it is vital that a new runway is built at Heathrow ahead of any development at Stansted.

"It is encouraging that the Government has committed itself to looking at ways to increase capacity out of the existing runways at London Heathrow which could include mixed-mode operations.

"We first started campaigning for mixed-mode operations in 1990, when we published 'Heathrow: How do we meet the demand?, the first report to look seriously at the benefits of such operations.

"Even then, we saw mixed-mode as no more than a short-term option. This remains true today. Heathrow needs new runway capacity and we need to be planning it now. We are extremely disappointed the Government has not taken serious account of the long-term needs of the country's premier international airport."

Sir Michael Bishop added: "The choice of Stansted for initial development of runway capacity in the South East poses serious questions about BAA and how it will finance such development.

"We do not believe BAA can fund such investment without cross-subsidy from its Heathrow operations. But I can promise that we will fight such a threat every step of the way.

"If cross-subsidy looked likely, we would see no way in which BAA could sensibly remain in its current form. We would therefore call for a break-up of the company into constituent parts which did not hold this sort of monopoly over capacity in the South East."

BAA Stansted today announced measures to re-assure people living near Stansted Airport about the effect of airport expansion on their homes.

Speaking two days after a Government White Paper calling for a second runway at Stansted, BAA Stansted said that it would respond promptly to any home owner within the boundary of the enlarged airport wishing to sell.

Terry Morgan, managing director of BAA Stansted airport said: "Compulsory Purchase Orders for properties needed for major developments are usually awarded at the time when planning permission is granted, often resulting in years of uncertainty for home owners."

"No-one can be sure how long it will take to get planning permission for the Stansted expansion, so today we are delivering certainty and flexibility to those whose homes will unfortunately need to be taken, with our Home Value Guarantee Scheme."

"Through the scheme, home owners will be able to sell to BAA at the time that suits them for the full market value of the property, based on June 2002 values, index-linked to regional property prices. We will also cover removal costs. On top of this, home-owners who sell will be entitled to an ex-gratia payment of 10% of the value of the home when BAA obtains planning permission."

The exact boundaries of the enlarged airport will be made public on or before 27 January 2004 and the scheme will become operational in spring 2004.

Terry Morgan added: "There will clearly be some local residents whose homes fall on or very near the boundary, when it is specified. We will deal with these cases as sensitively as possible."

BAA Stansted also said that it is planning to introduce a second scheme, the Home Owners Support Scheme, aimed at others close to the new runway who want to move but whose property values have been severely affected by the prospect of noise.

"Statutory arrangements are generally limited in this area, so we intend to provide support for other home owners close to the new runway, whose property values may be seriously undermined by the prospect of noise," said Mr Morgan.

The outline of the Home Owners Support Scheme will be published early in the New Year, for discussion with local community representatives.

BAA Stansted also committed itself today to an acoustic insulation scheme for people severely affected by noise when the new runway opens.

"These schemes offer people significantly better terms than those usually available. We are determined that we will engage in regular dialogue with our neighbours at Stansted to ensure that we do everything possible to address their concerns," said Mr Morgan.

A public information line for general enquiries on runway development is available on Tel: 0800 496 0199

The British Airports Authority (BAA) has told the BBC that landing charges could rise by up to £10 to pay for the planned expansion of Stansted airport.

BAA expects to raise £2bn from higher charges, roughly half the cost of the new runway due to be ready in 2011.

Low-cost airlines Easyjet and Ryanair, the airports biggest operators, are opposed to any increase in duty.

Work on Stansted's new runway is a key part of the government's plans to expand UK airports revealed on Tuesday.

BAA cannot impose any big rises in airport charges, however, for the next five years.

This is because the Civil Aviation Authority, not BAA, sets the fee - and in April this year it was capped for the next five years.

The maximum charge that can be levied this year is £4.89, increasing in line with inflation each year for the next five years.

But, according to BAA the average fee charge it imposes is much less than this, at £2.89 per passenger trip.

Stansted users are also unlikely to have the cost of improving other airports passed onto them in the short-term.

Under the current rules, BAA, which also runs Gatwick and Heathrow, cannot cross-subsidise its airports.

The news comes as a French court barred airline Ryanair from receiving subsidies from the Strasbourg Chamber of Commerce for its Stansted to Strasbourg service.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3330729.stm

THE Government today set out plans to transform air travel in the South-East - triggering a hail of protests and threats of legal action.

Transport Secretary Alistair Darling was set to double the capacity at Stansted by building a second runway at the Essex airport as part of a package designed to allow continual air travel expansion over the next 30 years.

His decision was met with dismay by local residents who said their homes would be blighted.

More alarmingly for the Government, big airlines led by BA were enraged that their demands for further Heathrow expansion had been turned down - and they vowed to overturn the decision in the courts.

But Mr Darling was insisting there was no easy alternative way to meet the soaring public demand for cheap and convenient flights.

In his long-awaited blueprint, the Transport Secretary was expected to:

* Suspend plans for a third runway at Heathrow on air pollution grounds, although the option remains open for the future.
* Approve second runways at Stansted and Birmingham airports.
* Reject the 9 billion plan for a new airport by the sea at Cliffe in north Kent and a new airport near Coventry.
* Delay further expansion at Gatwick.
* Increase the number of daily flights at Heathrow by allowing take offs and landings on the same runways.

Today's blueprint is designed to allow air travel to triple from 180 million passengers a year now to 500 million in 2030.

By picking Stansted, Mr Darling delighted the small no-frills airlines which already use the airport and the move could encourage more cheap flights.

But the big carriers and airport operator BAA accused him of making a huge error in failing to back Heathrow. They claimed a third runway at Heathrow was vital to maintain the airport's worldwide status.

Mr Darling, however, decided the extra Heathrow runway was impossible at present because it would breach European anti- pollution laws and be open to legal challenge. Officials said the option would be revived once airlines could show that clean fuel advances would reduce levels of toxic emissions to safe levels.

Gatwick was saved from being earmarked for expansion by a legal agreement banning new runways until 2019. But airlines said they may challenge that.

Legal actions are set to delay any construction work for around eight or nine years, Transport Department officials admitted. Campaigners said some of the South-East's prettiest villages would be ruined by noise.

Brian Ross, of the Stop Stansted Expansion Campaign, said Mr Darling's plans were "illogical", adding: "The major airlines do not want it and the budget airlines are not prepared to pay for it."

John Stewart of HACAN Clearskies, which opposes growth at Heathrow, attacked the "constant drone of aeroplanes overhead" and called for higher taxes to curb the rise in air travel.

But in a strongly pro-air travel document, Mr Darling was making clear he believes the public has the right to fly cheaply and freely. He was expected to signal further capacity increases at regional airports such as Belfast International, Cardiff, Manchester, Edinburgh and Glasgow.

WHEN Sarah and Andy Cousins moved to their 500-year-old cottage near Stansted, they thought they were buying into an idyllic country lifestyle. Today they faced the news their house will disappear under a second runway.

But Mrs Cousins, 39, whose Grade II listed cottage is set to be bulldozed, has vowed to fight the decision.

She and her husband, a BT executive, quit London so their children - Emma, seven, and five-year-old Matthew - could grow up as part of the small community of Brick End. When they moved they were aware they were under the Stansted flight path.

But they did not expect to have the airport built on top of their house.

"Not only would we lose our home, we would lose our village," said Mrs Cousins. "When we moved in, the people here had been given the assurance Stansted would always be an airport in the country. What is being proposed could hardly be more different."

BAA and a host of regional airport operators emerged as the big winners in Transport Secretary Alistair Darling's aviation White Paper today.

Darling gave the green light for a doubling of capacity to 40 million passengers a year at BAA's fast-growing Stansted Airport, where a new runway will be built by 2012.

BAA has long argued that Heathrow has the best economic case for expansion, and Darling signalled a third runway for the west London hub from 2015, though set against strong environmental caveats.

As important for BAA, whose shares were up 3/4p at 475p, is that Darling has not tried, as some MPs had urged, to break BAA's virtual London monopoly of Heathrow, Stansted and Gatwick.

Luton airport operator TBI's chief executive Keith Brooks said of the White Paper: "It is tremendous news for us."

Luton will be allowed to lengthen its runway and so increase its capacity from seven million passengers to 20 million within five years.

TBI's Cardiff airport is also in line for a major upgrade while two rival greenfield projects near Bristol have been dropped. TBI shares, which recently surged on reports of an impending takeover bid, were steady at 681/2p.

Stansted- based Ryanair warned that while expansion will provide even greater competition for consumers, airlines would be hit by the cost of construction.

"It is wrong that BAA is proposing to charge its customers up front for facilities [at Stansted] they will not be able to use for several years," said a spokesman.

THE CITY called Transport Secretary Alistair Darling's go-ahead for airport expansion a no-score draw today as the number crunchers began to work out who will foot the bill.

BAA has been given the green light for a doubling of capacity to 40 million passengers a year at already fastgrowing Stansted with a new runway to be built by 2012 - the headline of Darling's aviation White Paper.

BAA was also told it can build a third runway at Heathrow, but not before 2015 and only with strong environmental caveats.

However, BAA shares slipped 13/4p to 4721/2p as analysts fretted over who how it will raise the investment.

BMI British Midland led airlines in threatening to sue BAA if it uses Heathrow landing fees to fund Stansted.

Ryanair, Stansted's biggest user, also warned BAA over its plans to raise 4 billion for the Essex airport. "It is wrong that BAA is proposing to charge its customers upfront for facilities they will not be able to use for several years," said a spokesman.

Ryanair shares were off six cents at e6.41. Shares in easy-Jet, another big Stansted user but whose home is at Luton, were 1/2p firmer at 2851/2p.

Luton operator TBI's chief executive Keith Brooks said of Darling's White Paper: "It is tremendous news for us."

Luton will be allowed to lengthen its runway, increasing capacity from seven million passengers to 20 million within five years. Its Cardiff airport will also be upgraded.

TBI shares, recently boosted by takeover hopes, were steady at 681/2p.

SO IT IS to be Stansted and probably Heathrow, or failing that, Gatwick. There will be many thousands of people lying awake tonight wondering how their lives will be affected as a result of today's White Paper decision to allow not one but two new runways in the South East. The inclusion of Gatwick as a possible expansion site after 2019 will come as a shock, and planning permission for the other two new runways is still not certain.

The government has recognised that adequate infrastructure is necessary for economic growth, and that business travellers prefer Heathrow. But the Transport Secretary, Alistair Darling, has also taken account of environmental factors beyond his control. Those living near Heathrow will not be surprised to learn that air pollution levels there already exceed European Union limits due to come into force in 2010.

For that reason, a substantial reduction in emissions must be achieved, a condition strongly supported by this newspaper, before a new runway can be built. Because there can be no certainty until 2010 that the emission levels can be brought down at Heathrow, the go-ahead for expansion at Stansted is the best option available now. That means the destruction of historic houses and green fields.

And there is a real question about how workers can be found to man an airport in the Essex countryside, and whether enough travellers will wish to use it. However, Mr Darling has rightly left that question to the markets by stating that if BAA, the airport operator, can solve those problems and raise the required 4billion, it should have its new Stansted runway by 2012. If, by 2010, emissions have been reduced to the required level at Heathrow, and demand is still growing as currently predicted, then a third runway will go ahead there. If not, Gatwick offers an alternative - albeit unpopular - after 2019.

Co-ordinated international action to reduce the effective subsidy airlines enjoy through the absence of tax on their fuel remains desirable in the long term. It is now up to BAA to show that it can make a success of Stansted, and compensate affected local residents as fairly as possible. As for Heathrow, the White Paper's commitment to contain the environmental cost of expansion there must be honoured in the spirit and in the letter - or hundreds of thousands of west Londoners will suffer the consequences.

TRANSPORT Secretary Alistair Darling today faced criticism from anti-airport campaigners in the wake of his backing for two runways in the South-East.

But the threat of legal action against his plans made by BA and other airlines was lifted as he gave the go-ahead in principle to a third Heathrow runway.

Hacan ClearSkies said it would continue to campaign against a third runway. It said if it can prove the runway would breach limits on pollution, it could not be built.

Chairman John Stewart said: "We feel we are halfway there. We have postponed the third runway but the Government has left people facing noise and blight for years to come."

There was anger in Harmondsworth, the village which would virtually disappear under a third runway. Resident Barry Briggs, 55, said: "It seems the residents' feelings do not matter."

Wandsworth council said it could go to court within weeks to ask for a judicial review of the whole White Paper because the public did not get the chance to comment on other options for new airports.

Campaigners against further expansion of Gatwick said there was no chance of a second runway going ahead after 2019.

Brendon Sewil, of Say No Way Gatwick Runway, said: "By 2019 the world will be more concerned about climate change than extra runways."

Opponents to a new runway at Stansted, who include Jamie Oliver, were also not admitting defeat. Norman Mead, of Stop Stansted Expansion, said: "BAA could only proceed with an extra runway if there were no legal or regulatory barriers and if there was clear market demand.

"The project would also need to be environmentally sustainable, commercially viable and capable of being financed. The prospect of Stansted ever being able to meet these criteria is remote."

However, business leaders said they wanted to see Heathrow expanded more rapidly than Mr Darling's plan. Colin Stanbridge, of the London Chamber of Commerce, said: "Vast numbers of businesses across the South-East will be dismayed that London has to wait between 10 and 15 years for a third runway at Heathrow."

TODAY'S announcement is yet another formula for a failed transport policy in Britain. It could set us back even further than we are today.

If you want to establish an international hub at Heathrow, how can an airport based in Essex possibly be the right answer? I struggle to understand how a delayed decision on Heathrow in 2015 is going to help.

Where is the evidence that pollution standards are going to be any less rigorous than they are now? It is not the answer. What we need is more capacity now.

At the very least BAA ought to be able to use the Heathrow runways for takeoffs and landings simultaneously, the so-called mixed mode option. That could give Heathrow an additional 60,000 takeoff and landing slots a year.

There has been a long consultation period and the final decision does not take the UK an inch further forward. All that will happen is that the aviation industry will go backwards in relation to Europe, particularly compared with Paris and Frankfurt, which already have more runways than Heathrow.

There is also the question of how to fund Stansted. If it proves impossible for BAA or others to raise the estimated 4 billion needed to build a second runway at Stansted this would clearly show the Government has reached the wrong conclusion.

BAA may find a way of financing the Stansted expansion from its other airports, but if they do the airlines that use Heathrow and Gatwick will be up in arms. This might just be a great day for the lawyers.

The truth is that the consultation has been weak in a number of areas, particularly in relation to forecasting the growth at Stansted. The Government appears to have relied far too heavily on falling air fares from the no-frills carriers to boost demand at Stansted, while ignoring the importance of Heathrow.

Industries do mature and growth does slow down. It does not matter how cheap you make the tickets there has to be a reason to travel and somewhere affordable to stay when you get there.

Essex business leaders have welcomed the opportunities that the proposed expansion of Stansted airport will bring to the county.

"The announcement by Transport Secretary Alistair Darling that Stansted is to get a second runway was no surprise," said Nicholas Cook, chairman of the Essex branch of the Institute of Directors.

"Development anywhere and of any type is always going to concern residents' groups and environmental campaigners, but the current restrictions on further expansion at Heathrow was always going to mean expansion somewhere else.

"Stansted was clearly the front runner right from the start, driven by factors and influences outside the county. It is already an established international airport with good, and improving, road and rail links, well placed to serve London, the Eastern region and the Midlands," said Mr Cook.

"While there were few in the county who would have actively sought this expansion, we must look at the positive aspects. There will be huge opportunities for Essex to boost both the local economy and the image of the county in general as a player on the international stage, proud to host such a modern airport."

A medieval forest and a number of historic villages are set to be demolished by the expansion of Stansted airport - conservation groups have said.

Following the publication of the Government's White Paper conservation groups have predicted the increase in air travel would lead to a rise in polution which could threaten the survival of nearby Hatfield Forest.

The gardens of Easton Lodge would have to close, while listed houses in surrounding villages would be knocked down.

The National Trust renewed its call for the Government to focus on encouraging domestic tourism rather than embarking on an unnecessary and highly damaging programme of airport expansion.

Tony Burton, director of policy and strategy for the National Trust, said: "The Government should concentrate on getting tourists to spend their money in Britain rather than encouraging them to spend more and more money overseas."

Low-cost airline Ryanair welcomed news that Stansted is in line for a new runway. The Irish carrier said a second runway at the airport would be good news for passengers, allowing Stansted's capacity to double from 20m to 40m a year.

Ryanair's head of communications, Paul Fitzsimmons, took the opportunity to call for the break up of what it claimed was BAA's monopoly on London airports.

"It is wrong that BAA would be proposing to charge its customers, the travelling public, upfront for facilities they will not be able to use for several years."

A pro-aviation group has welcomed the Government's White Paper which has decided the future of air travel in the UK for the next 30 years.

Commenting for the Freedom to Fly Coalition, chairman Brenda Dean said: "This is a bold and very welcomed announcement by ministers.

"After decades of prevarication the Government has finally acknowledged the vital importance of additional runway capacity, not just for the south east of England but through regional development at Birmingham, Bristol, Manchester, Liverpool, Newscastle and Cardiff."

"The proposed new runway at Stansted will begin to meet the increasing demand envisaged over the next three decades, and the industry is confident it will be able to rapidly put in place the environmental safeguards to ensure the door is opened for the capacity increases at Heathrow and Gatwick, that can guarantee London's position as the premier global aviation centre."

Stansted will get an extra runway, Transport Secretary Alistair Darling has confirmed. The Transport Secretary ended months of speculation when he released the long-awaited aviation White Paper to Parliament this afternoon.

It sets out how ministers believe Britain will cope with the massive rise in airline passenger growth over the next 30 years.

Mr Darling said the Government supported the construction of a new runway at Stansted as soon as possible, with a view to it being operational by 2011 to 2012.

Mr Darling said the Government believed another new runway would be required in the south east by 2015 to 2020, with Heathrow as the preferred option.

The decision to base a new landing strip at the Essex airport is expected to be disputed by campaigners and a number of airlines, who have threatened legal action.

BAA welcomed the Government's new framework for UK aviation policy and said it would also work urgently to resolve the air pollution issues that were a barrier to further runway development at Heathrow.

"Aviation is vital to the economic and social well-being of the UK and we are pleased that the Government has taken such a long-sighted, strategic view in this White Paper," said Mike Clasper, BAA's Chief Executive.

"BAA identified four possible options for runway development in the South East and the Government has chosen two of them.

"At Stansted, we will proceed at once to draw up detailed plans and to examine the environmental impacts of a second runway. We will consult closely with the communities affected and address their concerns as sympathetically as possible."

Jim McAuslan, general secretary of the pilots' union, said the Government had shown refreshing common sense in arguing that economic growth and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive.

"We welcome the White Paper speaking up for the silent majority who want to fly more often, are encouraged by the plans for extra capacity outside the south east and the absence of any increased taxes."

"Governments don't build runways," said Stop Stansted Expansion chairman Norman Mead. "BAA could only proceed with an extra runway at Stansted if there were no legal or regulatory barriers and if there was clear market demand.

"The project would also need to be environmentally sustainable, commercially viable and capable of being financed. The prospect of Stansted ever being able to meet these criteria is remote."

"The idea of a second Stansted runway is illogical and undeliverable," continued Mr Mead.

Immediately after the announcement on Tuesday that Stansted was Whitehall's first choice, Councillor Alan Dean said: "Despite the fact that the Government has set Stansted first in the queue, this will not fly because the economics do not stack up."

"Also other airlines such as British Airways (BA), Virgin Express all wanted the runway to be at Heathrow."

Mr Dean said he expected the airlines and the BA shareholders to fight the decisions.

He added that the council would be meeting tonight to plan their next moves.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the future of air transport.

Today, I am publishing a White Paper that sets out the strategic framework for development for the next 30 years, against the background of wider developments in air transport. It is necessary to look ahead over a 30-year time scale. It is essential that we plan ahead to meet the pressures that we know we will face as a result of a growing economy, and in a world where people can, and will want to, travel more for business and leisure. Only the Government can provide such a framework to enable everyone to plan ahead.

First, let me set out the context. Air travel remains crucial to our growing economy. Some 200,000 jobs depend on it directly, and some 600,000 indirectly. There has been a fivefold increase in air travel in the last 30 years; indeed, half the population flies at least once a year. The growth in passengers travelling in the low-cost, no-frills sector has been dramatic. Five years ago, just 7 million people flew on low-cost airlines; this year, we expect the number to reach 47 million. A third of the goods that we export by value go by air, and that figure is increasing. Indeed, the amount of air freight at UK airports has doubled since 1990.

The Government recognise the benefits that the expansion of air travel has brought to people's lives and to this country's economy. Its increased affordability has opened up the possibility of travel for many people, and provides the rapid access that is essential to many modern businesses. But we have to balance those benefits against the serious environmental impact of air travel, particularly the growing contribution of aircraft emissions to climate change, and the significant impact that airports can have on those living nearby. That is why the Government remain committed to ensuring that, over time, aviation meets the external costs that it imposes. The White Paper sets out proposals to tackle aviation's greenhouse gas emissions by bringing it within the European Union emissions trading scheme. And the Government will continue to play a major role in seeking to develop new solutions and stronger actions by the appropriate international bodies.

The White Paper also makes it clear that we will legislate to strengthen and clarify the powers to control noise at airports, and to allow us to direct airport operators to levy higher charges on more polluting aircraft. Similar charges in relation to noise have helped to bring about significant noise reductions at the major London airports. But we can, and will, do more to reduce both noise and air pollution.

Some of our major airports are already close to capacity, so failure to allow for increased capacity could have serious economic consequences. But that must be balanced by the need to have regard to the environmental consequences of air travel. Simply building more and more capacity to meet demand is not sustainable. Instead, a balanced approach is required that recognises the importance of air travel to prosperity, but which seeks to reduce and to minimise the impact of airports on those living nearby, and on the natural environment.

I should also make it clear that the White Paper cannot, by itself, authorise any particular development, but it does set out a policy framework for future decisions. In the light of the White Paper it is for individual airport operators to bring forward proposals that will then be subject to the usual planning process. The White Paper sets out a strategic framework for the development of airport capacity. It sets out our conclusions for every part of the country and copies will be available from the Vote Office in the usual way; and I have also written to every Member setting out our proposals in more detail.

Let me set out the Government's conclusions. First, in Northern Ireland, as elsewhere, there has been a rapid increase in air travel. We support the development of Belfast International airport within its existing boundaries to serve forecast demand. The Northern Ireland authorities should be prepared to review the planning agreement affecting traffic volumes and operational hours at Belfast City airport and will also want to consider with the Irish Government the future of the City of Derry airport.

In Wales, in conjunction with the Welsh Assembly Government, we have concluded that Cardiff should remain the main airport for south Wales. It has experienced rapid growth, and extra terminal capacity will be needed as well as measures to improve access to the airport by both road and public transport. We also want to see the development of centres of excellence for aircraft maintenance work both in south Wales and the west of Scotland, as well as in the north-east of England and elsewhere.

We received proposals for a new airport in south-east Wales, but we have concluded, for the reasons set out in the White Paper, that they would not be viable. Instead, we prefer to see development at Cardiff and Bristol. Domestic air services make a major contribution to economic development, so the Welsh Assembly Government are to consider new internal services within Wales, potentially supported by public service obligations. They are also looking at setting up a route development fund, similar to the one operated by the Scottish Executive, which could support new services from Wales. We are also asking some English regional development agencies to consider similar funds for regional airports.

Because services to London airports, particularly Heathrow and Gatwick, are so important to Northern Ireland, Scotland and the south-west and north of England, we are setting out proposals for imposing public service obligations in well defined circumstances, to protect landing slots for services that are vital to the continued economic development and prosperity of those areas.

In Scotland, we and the Scottish Executive anticipate additional runway capacity will be needed in the central belt, probably around 2020, so we propose to safeguard land at Edinburgh for a second runway, together with the associated expansion of terminal buildings. We also recommend that consideration be given to protecting land at Glasgow for a possible new runway; and we also support safeguarding land for terminal expansion. The Scottish Executive have published plans to improve surface access to both Glasgow and Edinburgh airports. The White Paper also sets out proposals that would allow for continued growth at Aberdeen, Prestwick and Inverness. We see no case for a new airport in central Scotland.

In the north of England, we support the development of additional terminal capacity at Manchester, provided that the noise impacts from increased use of the airport are rigorously controlled. We agree that the airport at Liverpool should expand as projected and the runway be lengthened in the future, subject to the conditions set out in the White Paper. We also support plans for expansion of terminal facilities and runway extensions at Newcastle, Teesside and Leeds-Bradford.

In the midlands, we consulted on the option of a new airport to be built between Coventry and Rugby. I can tell the House that, for reasons set out in the White Paper, we do not support developing that new airport. The Government believe that we should make the best use of existing airport facilities and support the growth of existing regional airports, given their importance to economic development and prosperity. Birmingham airport provides an important regional base for a number of airlines and has an expanding long-haul market. Traffic is set to grow, and we support the case for a second runway at Birmingham, to be built probably around 2016, subject to stringent limits on noise.

East Midlands airport is the third largest freight airport in the United Kingdom and is rapidly establishing itself as the largest dedicated freight airport. We therefore support the projected expansion of both passenger and freight traffic at East Midlands airport. We see no need for a second runway at East Midlands, but we will keep it under review in the light of growth in freight and passenger traffic at the airport. As with other airports, we have set out proposals to establish stringent noise controls and to provide mitigation and compensation in relation to noise, and also to deal with blight.

In the south-west, we support the development of Bristol International airport, including a runway extension and new terminal when needed. However, we do not support the option of a new airport north of Bristol. We also anticipate the need for development of more terminal facilities at Bournemouth, as well as future development at Exeter and Newquay.

In Plymouth, the options, including the case for a new airport east of the city, need to be explored further by the local and regional authorities. Proposals for development at a number of smaller airports throughout the country are also dealt with in the White Paper.

I now turn to the south-east of England. The issue of airport capacity in the south-east is significant for the whole of the country. Although the vast majority of travellers using the main London airports are travelling to or from the south-east, the whole of the United Kingdom depends on the range and frequency of services from those airports.

The pressure on existing capacity is already more severe in the south-east than in the rest of the country. At the same time, it is the most densely populated part of the UK. As a result, the pressures from competing land uses and the likelihood of airport growth affecting people are greater too.

Therefore, we must strike a balance between the undoubted importance to future prosperity and the local environmental impact of development. Again, our first priority is to make the best possible use of existing runways that will provide some much needed capacity. That is why we support proposals to make best use of the existing runways, including development to make the maximum use of a full-length single runway at Luton. However, this will not be enough to meet the pressure that will arise over the next 30 years.

In line with the balanced approach that I have already set out, the Government believe that, over the next 30 years, there should be two new runways in the south-east. The first new runway will need to be completed within a decade, but work also needs to start on planning for a second runway, to be built probably around 2015 to 2020.

I shall now set out our conclusions. First, we consulted on the possibility of building a new airport at Cliffe. I have concluded, taking all relevant factors into account, that we do not support an airport there.

Stansted has seen very substantial growth in passengers in recent years. This year, it is expected to handle nearly 19 million passengers, compared with fewer than 7 million only five years ago. Despite that growth, the number of people significantly affected by noise fell by 70 per cent. between 1998 and 2002. There is likely to continue to be strong growth in demand at Stansted and, at current rates of growth, its runway capacity would be used up within a few years. A second runway at Stansted would provide very substantial runway capacity in the south-east, and generate large economic benefits. However, like any such development, it would have significant local environmental consequences.

The local economy is already set to grow strongly. We believe that the Government's objectives for regional economic development would be complemented by an expansion of Stansted. On balance, we have therefore concluded that the first new runway in the south-east should be developed as soon as possible at Stansted airport, expected to be opening around 2011 or 2012. Surface access will need to be improved and, of course, there will need to be strict environmental controls as set out in the White Paper.

Heathrow is the UK's major hub airport. It competes primarily with major continental airports such as Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Paris. It enables London and the south-east to compete for investment and growth. In addition, London has one of the strongest local catchment areas for international air travel in the world, especially in the finance and business services sector, which rely on global markets and good international communications. Moreover, Heathrow directly or indirectly supports nearly 100,000 jobs. It is a prime driver of the west London and the Thames valley economy.

Without additional capacity, Heathrow's route network will tend to reduce over time, most likely to the advantage of other international hub airports in northern Europe. There is, therefore, a strong economic case for securing the large economic benefits through the addition of a new runway at Heathrow. However, at the same time, that has to be balanced against the substantial environmental impacts at Heathrow.

Although today's jets are 75 per cent. quieter than in the 1960s, and although the number of people affected by severe noise has reduced over the years, noise impacts at Heathrow are many times worse than at other UK airports. The most difficult issue confronting expansion at Heathrow concerns how to ensure air quality nearby is kept at acceptable levels, and to achieve compliance with the mandatory air quality limits for nitrogen dioxide that will apply from 2010.

That is why we said last year that development at Heathrow could be considered only if the Government were confident that levels of all relevant pollutants could be consistently contained within EU limits. Having considered all these matters, the Government have concluded that there is a strong case for a third runway at Heathrow, once we can be confident that that key condition in relation to compliance with air quality limits can be met. We judge that there is a substantially better prospect of achieving that condition in the 2015–20 period, provided that we take action now to tackle the nitrogen dioxide problem, which is work that should be done in any event.

Our support is also conditional on measures to ensure that the total area within the 57 dB noise contour should not increase from last year, as well as on improvements to surface access. We will therefore institute immediately with the airport operator, and relevant bodies and agencies, a programme of action to consider how those conditions can be met to enable the addition of a third runway. For the meantime, the White Paper sets out proposals to work up measures to increase capacity at Heathrow using its existing runways, subject to further consultation and strict environmental controls.

At Gatwick, the Government will not seek to overturn the legal agreement that prevented the construction of a second runway there before 2019. However, land will continue to be safeguarded for possible further development at Gatwick in case the conditions attached to a runway at Heathrow cannot be met. The White Paper also sets out stringent environmental conditions that we expect operators to meet and other proposals to limit and mitigate the impacts that aviation has on the environment, including its impact on global warming.

We are setting out proposals for the development of air transport for a generation. It is essential that we plan ahead now: our future prosperity depends on it. The policies set out in the White Paper will support economic prosperity throughout the United Kingdom; will enable people to make flights at reasonable costs; and will control and mitigate the environmental impacts of aviation. I commend this statement to the House.

Mrs. Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con): I thank the Secretary of State for prior sight of his statement. This is an important day for the future of our aviation industry, and he is right that important decisions must be taken to set the framework for the industry's future if it is to continue to contribute successfully to the UK economy. But decisions taken today are also of crucial importance for those millions of people who live close to an airport or underneath a flight path, and for the quality of our environment. A difficult balance has to be achieved between competing needs. That is why the Government's decisions need to give clarity and certainty for all involved.

Far from setting a clear way forward for air transport in the UK, today's announcement is a fudge from an incompetent Government, which will deliver only blight to millions of people living around airports across the country. Indeed, anyone living around any of the airports in the south-east is now faced with indefinite uncertainty.

Let us look at the Government's incompetence. They have already been forced by the courts to extend the consultation because they failed at first to include Gatwick in their proposals. The Environmental Audit Committee, noting that the airports consultation did not include a formal environmental impact assessment, went on to say:

"We regard the absence of concise, transparent and strategic integrated appraisals as a major weakness in the consultation documents. The Department's failure in this respect conflicts with its own guidance. As a result it is impossible to assess the overall benefits of different degrees of expansion—or the relative benefits and disbenefits of regional expansion vis-à-vis expansion in the South East."

When Birmingham Airport proposed a new short runway, the Department refused to re-issue consultation documents and include the plan in its public consultation, so the voice of local people on that proposal was not heard. Today the Secretary of State has announced precisely the proposal on which the people of the midlands were not consulted. Does he accept that the Government's failures in the consultation process now make it certain that there will be legal challenge to their decisions, thus blighting the lives of millions of people with years of further uncertainty?

The Government's incompetence is all too clear elsewhere. The Secretary of State says that Heathrow will expand when the emissions problem is solved. But there is nothing in this statement that explains how the Government propose to solve that problem. On page 122 of the White Paper, he says that he has no plans for further motorway widening" — in that area. He also says: "The solution will need to be based on improvements to public transport." Can he confirm that he is announcing no improvements to public transport to bring that about?

The Eyre airports inquiries 1981–83 reported on a possible second runway at Stansted, concluding that it would be an unprecedented and wholly unacceptable major environmental and visual disaster". Is the Secretary of State now reversing that judgment and, if so, what has changed to make him do so?

[Interruption.] On page 115 of the White Paper, the Secretary of State said that Stansted enjoys—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members are unfair to the hon. Lady. She is entitled to put her case to the House—[Interruption.] Order. The Secretary of State was heard; the hon. Lady must be heard.

Mrs. May: On page 115 of the White Paper, the Secretary of State said that Stansted enjoys good transport connections by road and rail. Has he tried them recently?

The Government support a new runway at Stansted where the growth has been in low-cost airlines, yet building the runway would mean putting up charges, thus driving away those low-cost airlines. The Government have said that commercial viability is a hurdle that must be cleared by developments on new or existing airport sites, yet the British Airports Authority has told the Government that an extra runway at Stansted would not be commercially viable without cross-subsidy from Heathrow and Gatwick. BAA may well find either that it cannot fund or that it cannot afford a new runway at Stansted in the near future. Given that the Government are making expansion at Stansted a pre-requisite for expansion of capacity in the south-east, what do they propose to do if the funding is not available?

The Government are proposing a new runway at Stansted that local people do not want and large airlines do not want to use and that low-cost airlines may not be able to afford to use. Just who will use a new runway at Stansted?

Not only have the Government not made the proper assessments on which to base their decisions, but it is clear that their right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. At the same time as the Secretary of State for Transport is proposing a new runway at Stansted, the Deputy Prime Minister wants to build tens of thousands of new homes in the Stansted-M11 corridor. One Department says that it is okay to build a runway because there are not many people in the area, yet another Department says, Let's put people there".

Lack of joined-up thinking between Departments is one thing, but lack of joined-up thinking within a Department is quite another. Today, the Department for Transport announced plans to increase passenger numbers at Stansted, Birmingham, Heathrow and possibly East Midlands and Gatwick. That will need better roads and railways to get people to and from the airports, yet the same Department for Transport has made no provision for building those roads and railways.

In Birmingham, the Department has shelved plans for an expansion of the M42—the very road that will have to take traffic going to and from an expanded Birmingham airport. At peak times, the hard shoulder already has to be put into use. Getting to Birmingham by rail depends primarily on the west coast main line, yet only last week the Government shelved some of the planned improvements on that line. That is not a 10-year transport plan; it is not even a 10-day transport plan.

We need railways before runways. Will the Secretary of State confirm that no provision was made for that work in the 10-year transport plan, that the work needed would cost a total of £30 billion and that the Strategic Rail Authority does not have the money?

We were promised joined-up government; what we have is disjointed government. We were promised an integrated transport policy; what we have is a disintegrating transport system. We were promised decisions for the future of air transport; what we have from this incompetent Government are years of uncertainty and serious blight on the lives of millions of people.

Mr. Darling: I am sure that I cannot be the only Member of the House who wonders what Conservative policy on airports actually is. I shall not labour the point as I expect that we shall have many occasions to debate those things, but it occurs to me that if the hon. Lady is serious about being in opposition and about providing a credible alternative, she needs a policy on airport development.

The hon. Lady said that we made fudged decisions, yet she then criticised the detail of the decisions that we announced. She cannot have it both ways. This is the first time for about 30 years that a Government have looked at the long-term requirements for air travel, covering the whole country. We held consultations and listened to what people said and then we had to take difficult decisions. As will, I suspect, become apparent in the next hour or so, the decisions are difficult and controversial.

The hon. Lady mentioned Birmingham. I conclude from what she says that she is against expansion there, as she is against a second runway. However, looking ahead to about 2016, we believe that the airport will need a second runway to help it to develop and to help people living in the midlands who fly just as much as people elsewhere.

It would appear that the hon. Lady is against development at Heathrow, too. I listened to what she said about motorway widening and public transport; but at least we are actually spending money on improving public transport. She is against every penny of it.

On Stansted, it is perfectly true that in 1981 fewer than 1 million people were using the airport. Even five years ago, only 7 million people were using it, but this year it will handle 19 million passengers. Anyone who has ever been to Stansted, and I have been there by both road and rail—incidentally, we have just finished major improvement of the road into Stansted airport—will know that the airport is extremely crowded. That brings us to the nub of the hon. Lady's problem, which is, indeed, a problem that we must all face up to. Of course, increased air travel has environmental consequences, especially for people living close to airports; but at the same time, her constituents, my constituents—all our constituents—are, because of their increasing prosperity, choosing to fly more.

I do not say that we should meet all that demand—indeed, we are proposing less than is actually needed according to some views—but we cannot have a situation in which the Government take the easy option, as successive Governments have done in the past, of doing absolutely nothing and hoping for the best. The decisions are difficult and, yes, I have no doubt that there will be legal challenges—lawyers up and down the country will be rubbing their hands even as I speak—but it is the job of the Government to make decisions and to set out a clear strategy for the next generation. That is what we have done.

John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD): I am grateful to the Secretary of State for letting me have an advance copy of the statement.

The aviation industry is an important and successful contributor to the British economy, both in its own right and as a key driver of economic growth. However, we live in an age where we all accept that the commercial imperative must be balanced against environmental costs and social disruption. I therefore give the statement a very cautious welcome, albeit with considerable reservations, because it accepts that approach. I welcome the recognition of the importance of regional airports, especially their ability to take some of the load from the south-east and to help to manage demand.

Will the Secretary of State confirm the Government's commitment to ensuring that aviation meets its external costs, but will he tell us what over time" means? Are the Government actively working to achieve that aim and when will the Secretary of State set a target date for its achievement? Will he also confirm his acceptance of the polluter pays principle with higher charges for aircraft that pollute more? What is he doing to extend the principle? For example, what is he doing to promote aviation fuel tax, as opposed to air passenger duty? That duty on passengers is equivalent to approximately 10p in aviation tax, yet it provides no incentive for operators to improve environmental performance.

I welcome the announcement that there is to be no airport at Cliffe, although as that was always a non-starter, I suspect that the proposal was a red herring to divert the attention of the environmental lobby. Does he accept our welcome for his statement that simply building more capacity to meet demand is not sustainable? I hope that he will confirm that that commits predict and provide as a policy to the dustbin.

As the Secretary of State said, it is necessary to plan ahead over a 30-year time scale, but has he not missed an opportunity to consider the long-term vision across all modes, particularly with regard to high-speed rail links? Does he accept that the growth in budget airlines is unsustainable and that the budget airline model is fatally flawed until such time as its costs are properly externalised?

Finally, on Heathrow, what assurances can the Secretary of State give that no development will be entertained until a sustainable environmental case has been made? Does he accept that further noise and pollution cannot be imposed on long-suffering residents of the surrounding area? My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) would have made that point had she not been giving the eulogy at a funeral as we speak. Will the Government accept that more could and should be done to manage demand as the essential tool for achieving sustainable growth for our aviation industry?

Mr. Darling: It would have been helpful—although perhaps it is not surprising in the case of the Liberals—if the hon. Gentleman too had a policy for dealing with the problem. The Liberals are in favour of air travel but not airports.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments about regional airports, which are important. On airports in the south-east, it is worth bearing it in mind that about 80 per cent. of people travelling to and from them live in the south-east, so many of their customers are local. He is right that airports outside the south-east are important. That is why we support development at Birmingham, for example, because if people can fly from Birmingham and not London, that will take some of the pressure off London airports.

I also agree with the hon. Gentleman's remarks about aviation meeting its costs, which I mentioned in my statement. The polluter pays principle applies to aviation as much as it does to any other sector, but, as he ought to know, aviation fuel taxation is governed by international treaties. The Government have been arguing for some time that aviation ought to meet its costs, and we will continue to do so. Some of the measures that I announced today, such as giving power to airport operators to charge higher landing fees for more polluting aircraft, will be an incentive to airlines to clean up engines. I agree that predict and provide is complete nonsense—bearing it in mind that runways will be built by commercial operators and no one will build a runway on spec, just in case—and it has never been a policy that I have supported.

On rail links, the hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly good point. The channel tunnel rail link has carried 1 million passengers since the first high-speed line was opened in September—thanks to us rescuing it in 1998—and the CTRL now has more than half the travel market between London and Paris. That is an example of how it can help. He should be clear about managing demand, about which we may hear more. I am clear that, over time, aviation must meet its costs like any other sector, but when people talk about managing demand, in many ways they are talking about pricing people off aeroplanes. In that regard, he is getting himself into tricky waters, unless he proposes to march down the check-in queue at Inverness airport saying to people, I can fly, but you can't."

John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab): This is the first time in 25 years of representing my constituents at local or central Government level that any Government have said no to the automatic expansion of Heathrow airport that has been demanded by the aviation industry. I thank my right hon. Friend for that. Many of my constituents will feel that we have won a decisive battle but not the war. Therefore, may I ask what mechanism he will put in place to ensure the independent assessment of any aviation industry claims that it may have met the environmental conditions that he set out today for further expansion at Heathrow? What process does he envisage for undertaking the review of alternation at Heathrow?

Mr. Darling: There are two points in that. My hon. Friend will know that, following the terminal 5 inquiry, the airport operator, BAA, is already obliged to reduce nitrogen dioxide levels, and that work is in hand to do that. In relation to our evaluation methods, the Department uses a model that is widely accepted as accurate. In any planning inquiry—one would have to take place on a third runway at Heathrow—all the arguments and counter-arguments would be fully tested and explored.

I note for my hon. Friend's comments, for which I am grateful, but there is a difficult balance to be struck at Heathrow. Clearly, there are big environmental problems, which is why I do not believe that we can authorise a third runway there now. He will also be acutely aware, as a west London Member, that Heathrow dominates the west London economy and is critical to the whole of UK aviation. That is why it is a difficult decision. In contrast to what the Opposition said, I believe that the Government must face up to such decisions and take them.

Mr. Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con): The decision to build at Stansted before Heathrow is perverse and will prove unworkable. It will be bad for aviation, bad for the country and bad for the environment. Given that, in 1985, the Government's own inspector concluded that a second runway at Stansted would, to use his words, be an environmental catastrophe, on what evidence is the Secretary of State now reversing that judgment?

Mr. Darling: In 1985, Stansted was used by a very small number of people, and I do not suppose that the inspector, Mr. Eyre, could possibly have foreseen that Stansted would this year handle 19 million passengers—[Interruption.] Hold on. The hon. Gentleman will know, because he knows Stansted airport, that the rise in use of that airport has been dramatic. When I made my statement, I told the House that, looking at the south-east of England, over the next 30 years, it needs two runways. Work needs to start on one now, as, on any view, it would be the end of the decade before the runway was available, and work also needs to start on the second one. If we do not do that, we will end up with increasing pressure to fly that we simply cannot meet. I remind the House that, if only Governments 20 years ago had had the sense to realise the pressures on our road and railway system, we would not have some of the problems that we have today. We need to plan ahead, and if he asks what the grounds are, they are set out in the White Paper.

Mrs. Irene Adams (Paisley, North) (Lab): I congratulate the Secretary of State on having the courage to take the long-term view on aviation. In relation to central Scotland, however, he proposes to safeguard land at Edinburgh airport for future runway and terminal expansion but only recommends that consideration be given to the same at Glasgow. That flies in the face of evidence taken from the CBI, Scottish business, BAA and anyone who was consulted on it. Can he tell me what the terms of that consideration will be? Who will make that consideration, and what is its likely time scale?

Mr. Darling: The position in relation to Glasgow is that Renfrew council, the local planning authority, will be asked to safeguard land for a possible second runway there. In the central belt of Scotland, there will be a need for one additional runway. All the evidence is that pressures will arise at both Edinburgh and Glasgow. On Glasgow, it has become evident since we started consulting that the use of Prestwick has increased dramatically, and that, in effect, the west of Scotland already has two runways, because Prestwick airport is taking traffic away from Glasgow. Whether Glasgow needs a second runway—we are talking about 2020—we do not know. It is sensible to safeguard development there because it would be foolish to rule it out. In any event, terminal development will be needed at Glasgow because its traffic is likely to grow.

All the signs are that the pressure on Edinburgh airport, which has increased dramatically in the last few years, will grow and grow. Clearly, BAA, which owns both airports, will have to decide what it wants to do. We have arranged in the White Paper that there is facility for expansion at both airports. I do not believe that we need two runways in the centre of Scotland—there is no justification for that—but we do need one. The position in Glasgow is being safeguarded, but what is happening with Prestwick and Glasgow means that there are effectively two runways operating in the west of Scotland now. That was not the case even four or five years ago.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth (East Surrey) (Con): The one thing that we were entitled to expect out of this lengthy and painful process was an end to doubt. Does the Secretary of State realise that he has produced a recipe for confusion and blight? What does he have to say to my constituents near Gatwick who will now not know for possibly a decade whether the airport will be expanded? If he has made a decision about Redhill aerodrome, I would be grateful to hear it because he appears to have ducked and dodged decisions on almost everything else.

Mr. Darling: I will forgive the hon. Gentleman because he cannot possibly have read the whole White Paper in the 40 minutes that it has been available. He will find that the Government do not think that Redhill should be expanded.

The hon. Gentleman will know that land to the south of the existing runway at Gatwick has been safeguarded for some time. That safeguarding must be continued and amended slightly in case there is development, but I made it clear right from the start that I did not think that the 2019 agreement should be overturned, and I confirmed that today. That is pretty certain.

Ms Candy Atherton (Falmouth and Camborne) (Lab): How much extra protection will be provided for the residents of Devon and Cornwall by today's announcement given the economic importance of air links to Newquay and Plymouth?

Mr. Darling: I think that my hon. Friend is asking about PSOs—public service obligations—and as I said in my statement, the White Paper sets out the fact that the Government are prepared to step in to safeguard routes from the parts of the United Kingdom, including south-west England, that are further away from London.

Mr. Francis Maude (Horsham) (Con): It is disappointing that the Government have ruled out the long-term serious option of building new airport capacity on the coast, which is happening in most countries where that possibility exists. I am doubly disappointed that they have not removed the blight and uncertainty from any of the existing London airports—in fact, the problem is being compounded. Although the decision not to overturn the 2019 agreement on Gatwick is welcome, how long will it be before the Heathrow issue is resolved? Our constituents in West Sussex need the land that is being safeguarded for the housing that is being imposed on West Sussex by the Deputy Prime Minister. How long will it be before the uncertainty can be resolved?

Mr. Darling: The right hon. Gentleman is not exactly clear whether he wants the housing or not—I rather get the impression that he does not. He will know that the land is safeguarded now, that it has been safeguarded for some time and that it will continue to be safeguarded. I am grateful to him for welcoming the fact that we are not going to overturn the 2019 agreement, which would have been wrong. We have examined proposals for the development of coastal and estuarial airports, but, for the reasons set out in the White Paper, we do not think that we can proceed with them.

Mr. Alan Hurst (Braintree) (Lab): I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept that I am one lawyer who is not rubbing his hands with glee at today's announcement about Stansted. He will be aware of the disappointment and dread caused by the announcement of the expansion. He has already indicated that he is aware of the findings of the public inquiry, which unreservedly damned any second runway. What assessment has he made of the potential profitability of Stansted with a second runway without cross-subsidy from Gatwick and Heathrow?

Mr. Darling: As with any airport development, the private operator must finance airport construction, and, in the case of Stansted, BAA must make such a commercial judgment. I understand that it will say something further in next few days, but it must decide whether it thinks the figures stack up commercially, and the Government will not step in and do that for it.

On my hon. Friend's first point, I accept what was the case in 1985, but aviation has changed dramatically in the past few years. As I said to the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk), even five years ago Stansted had very little traffic; now 19 million people use it. I also repeat the point that, after examining the south-east as a whole—one must examine it as a whole—one sees that it needs two runways in the 30-year period. For the reasons that we have set out, our judgment is that the first runway ought to be at Stansted and that the second one at Heathrow, provided that Heathrow can meet the conditions that we have set out.

Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con): Mr. Speaker, your Deputy, the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst), and his constituents have, like mine, fought tirelessly against the Stansted expansion. Does the Secretary of State accept that his decision will cause great misery in Essex and east Hertfordshire? How can he explain it to my constituents? It is not a commercial decision—the airlines and BAA have made that clear. It is not an environmental decision—the expansion was described as a catastrophe by the last inspector to examine it—and there is nobody to pay for the infrastructure. Who will pay for the necessary roads and railway links? He gives no answer. It is not good enough for him to talk about the new slip road because that was promised 10 years ago and it is just a catch-up.

Mr. Darling: The airport will be a commercial decision because BAA is responsible for financing and building it. The Civil Aviation Authority regulates cross-subsidy and similar issues between the London airports. I know what was said in 1985, but I have said to the hon. Gentleman and other Members that a lot has changed in the past 20 years. On surface access, the Government have a responsibility for both road and rail.

The hon. Gentleman raised a general point, which we shall return to time and time again, about what he should say to all his constituents. We must balance the fact that airport development has an environmental impact with the fact that more and more of us, including his constituents, are flying more. Such problems are difficult. When I started this process and said that we must press ahead, my senior officials told me that all my predecessors had backed off because the issue is difficult. I can well see why previous Secretaries of State have run a mile from this issue, but I would have been shirking my duty if had not faced up to the difficulties and set out firm proposals to enable people to plan ahead.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab): The whole House will share with the Secretary of State the much-guarded secret of the expansion of airports in the south-east and welcome the expansion of the regional airports in particular. The reality is that those airports will require flights into Heathrow, which they regard as their lifeline. How will they be protected, will the passenger service obligations be used to ensure that they can fly to Heathrow and what estimate has he made of the cost of not developing Heathrow in the next 10 years? The commercial loss of business to continental airports will be very large. Would he like to tell us what it will be?

Mr. Darling: First, I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks about regional airports. I note that she has been entirely consistent because in 1985, which was the last time a Secretary of State came to the Dispatch Box and said anything about airport development, she said the same thing, and she is absolutely right.

The position on Heathrow is that, because of the mandatory requirements relating to nitrogen dioxide, we could not now authorise, approve or support the building of a third runway there. It is clear that, at the moment, a third runway would breach the mandatory NO2 requirements, which is why we believe that work should start on reducing NO2. It should start anyway because we should do everything that we can to reduce it. However, we should keep open the possibility for precisely the reasons that she set out and supports. I made it clear earlier that a third runway at Heathrow could be built provided that we can overcome the problems with air pollution. It would have been wrong for the Government to have said, Yes, just go ahead now", while ignoring the environmental problems that undoubtedly exist at Heathrow.

On my hon. Friend's general point, nobody should be under any illusions: Heathrow is vital not only to the UK but internationally. It is one of the world's leading airports, which is why, no matter what the difficulties, we must do our level best to resolve those problems.

Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne) (Con): Does the Secretary of State accept that, on Heathrow, wait and see" is the worst possible answer? My constituents want someone with the courage to say yes or no now. If he were to say yes, he would please just over half my constituents and if he said no, he would satisfy the rest, but instead he will upset them all, especially if he pursues the argument on runway alternation. Uncertainty on Heathrow is bad news. Those who believe that a new runway would safeguard their jobs will worry about redundancy and those who paid a high price for their house will worry that property values might fall. Those who want a better environment will wonder whether they will ever get it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Many hon. Members want to speak, so they should ask only one supplementary question.

Mr. Darling: I am not sure which side of the great argument the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) is on. The White Paper says unequivocally that the Government will support the development of a third runway at Heathrow once we are satisfied that it could meet our environmental obligations. That seems pretty clear to me.

Mr. Dennis Turner (Wolverhampton, South-East) (Lab/Co-op): Speaking on behalf of the 42 members of the west midlands regional Labour parliamentary group, I congratulate the Secretary of State on his firm rejection of a new airport in Rugby, which we opposed unanimously during the consultation. I warmly welcome his decision on Birmingham International airport because the group believes that that will assist the region to meet demand more locally, to generate benefits for economic development and to minimise environmental impact. Will he acknowledge our thanks from the west midlands and may I wish him a happy Christmas?

Mr. Darling: Let me see if I can answer that difficult question. I think that I find myself in total agreement with my hon. Friend.

Mr. John Taylor (Solihull) (Con): Does the Secretary of State realise that his proposal for Birmingham airport was not one of the four options on which my constituents were consulted? The consultation was therefore a sham and an insult to them, and the decision will be challenged.

Mr. Darling: As I said earlier, I am sure that there would have been the possibility of legal challenges up and down the country whatever we did, so we have to accept that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that the expansion of Birmingham airport will be required at some point in the long-term interest of the west midlands and Birmingham itself. It will probably need a second runway some time after 2016, so the questions will be where that should be and what should be proposed. The proposal that we are prepared to support has the advantage that it suggests a shorter runway than that originally proposed.

Mr. Taylor: It was not one of the options.

Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman must contain himself. The proposal represents a better solution, and surely we must all be in the business of providing better solutions for our constituents. If something better is on offer, that is worth looking at.

Mr. David Watts (St. Helens, North) (Lab): I welcome my right hon. Friend's support for regional services to Heathrow. He knows that many regional airports have lost their links, so will he consider how to restore links to airports such as Liverpool?

Mr. Darling: Yes, I am aware of that. The Government's first preference is for all services to be provided on a commercial basis because that represents the best way of ensuring their long-term success. As I said earlier, the Government will consider using PSOs, and the White Paper sets out the criteria under which we would decide whether they would be necessary.

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South) (UUP): I welcome the Secretary of State's comments on Belfast's airports but may I press him again on Heathrow because we all recognise its importance? How much of the air quality pollution at Heathrow is due to long taxiing and the fact that planes must fly around for half an hour waiting for a slot?

Mr. Darling: There is no doubt that taxiing, aircraft circling Heathrow and aircraft having to wait a long time to take off contribute to pollution, but they are not the major source of the problem. There is an argument that additional runway capacity would mean that there might be less need for aircraft to run their engines when not taking off, but most of the pollution comes from the airfield itself and associated traffic movement around Heathrow. That is why we need to do more not only to get cleaner engines but to improve public transport links to Heathrow. The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) criticised me for not widening the M25 further, but I do not think that it could be widened much further there—for all I know, that is her policy. We must ensure that we bear down on pollution on all fronts but we should do that anyway for the good of people living in west London.

Mr. David Marshall (Glasgow, Shettleston) (Lab): I welcome today's deliberate and sensible statement and especially the decision to build a third runway at Heathrow eventually. May I urge the Secretary of State not to allow any slippage and to ensure that the runway is built as soon as the conditions laid down are met because the UK as a whole will otherwise lose out further to Frankfurt, Charles de Gaulle and Schiphol as a