SECOND RUNWAY RALLY ON 2 APRIL 2008

Norman Baker MP, Liberal Democrat Transport Spokesman
Christopher Beazley MEP (East of England)
Julian Brazier MP, Conservative Shadow Aviation Minister
Andrew Duff MEP (Liberal Democrat, East of England)
Dr Caroline Lucas MEP
Geoffrey van Orden MEP
Bill Rammell MP (Harlow, Minister of State, Education & Skills)
Bob Russell MP (Colchester)
Tim Yeo MP (Suffolk South) and Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee

Thank you for inviting me to your rally. I am sorry that Parliamentary duties mean I am not able to be here.

I would like to assure you that my Lib Dem colleagues and I are strongly opposed to the proposed expansion at Stansted, both because we regard it as environmentally unsustainable and because we believe it would be damaging to the local community. There is no doubt that the environmental impact of Stansted expansion would be considerable, not simply as a result of the increased emissions from aeroplanes, with all the implications for both climate change and local air quality, but also because of the increase in road traffic congestion in the local area that would be the inevitable consequence ofa busier airport.

In addition to environmental issues referred to above, we also believe that expansion at Stansted would create an unacceptable level of noise for local residents and indeed those further away under the flight path, particularly at night. This is why the Lib Dems are committed to supporting the existing system of runway alternation and want to phase out night flights.

The Lib Dems are in fact against any further airport expansion in the south-east and instead we would require the aviation industry to make the best use of existing runways and live within its existing infrastructure. We would also encourage better public transport access to the UK's airports in order to reduce traffic levels and carbon emissions from vehicles in communities located nearby.

I hope it all goes well today and for the campaign in general. Please feel free to keep me abreast of developments.

Best wishes for the continuing success of SSE. I believe the campaign has already achieved considerable success in making clear and making public the blatant inconsistencies of the original Government proposal for Stansted. In my view the original intention was to expand Heathrow to which Luton and Stanstead were added as a political contrivance. Clearly, I wish to continue to do all I can to support your campaign.

Yours is a potent example of community power. I salute your efforts today and congratulate the Stop Stansted Campaign.

As you may know, The Conservative Party reiterated its objection to a second runway at Stansted, at last year's Conservative Party Conference. That policy commitment will form part of any Conservative Party election manifesto. We are opposed to the Government's 'predict and provide' approach to airport capacity, not least for reasons of climate change, and it is becoming clearer and clearer that the government's whole Aviation White Paper was an incoherent mess.

Any expansion in passenger capacity here at Stansted has many flaws but a simple analysis of… for example… rail infrastructure shows the folly of the scheme. The Train service from Liverpool Street Station is widely regarded as unsatisfactory. Most observers have noted that far from getting better the service is getting slowly worse. The claims on the Stansted Express website of 46min journey times sound good. But a look at the time table shows that most journeys are taking longer.

The plain fact is that the airlines do not want an extra runway at Stansted. The fact that there are still so few wide-body flights show that a new runway can only be possible by means of cross subsidy. This is only possible because of the unsatisfactory monopoly position of BAA.

So what do we have ladies and gentlemen? An airport that you don't want… an Airport that the Airlines don't seem to want… an airport that undoubtedly needs cross subsidy from Heathrow and Gatwick… an airport the public cannot readily get to… and the Government that says this is the future of air transport… we disagree.

I'm afraid that, as I suspected, it is physically impossible for me to join you at Bishop's Stortford.

Nevertheless, I wish the meeting to be a great success and a real demonstration that a very large number of people drawn locally, regionally and nationally oppose the government's plan to impose a second runway on Stansted.

I hope the debate will not turn simply on local planning issues but will fuel a much larger questioning of the assumptions that lie behind government policy on airport expansion. Liberal Democrats do not believe that mere growth in GDP should be pursued to the neglect of quality of life issues. We also want competition policy to bite, both as far as BAA's monopolistic position is concerned, and also to ensure that aviation has to compete on equal fiscal terms with other modes of transport. We will continue to be rigorous in ensuring that Stansted Airport complies scrupulously with European Union laws concerning pollution control and the protection of nature.

Best wishes and good luck.

I'm very sorry that I can't be with you in person tonight, but I want to wish you every success in your campaign, and to pledge to do all I can to support it.

The campaign to halt the proposed expansion of Stansted Airport is crucial if we are to win the the fight against what is looking set to be part of the largest expansion of aviation in a generation.

Any government which, on the one hand pledges to make a significant reduction in greenhouse gases by 2020, and in the next breath gives the green light to a massive expansion of aviation is guilty of either the most shameless hypocrisy, or the most unforgiveable ignorance and stupidity. If it supports an expansion of Stansted, the Government will make a mockery not only of its claims to be taking action on climate change, but also its claim to have any concern for democracy at all.

It is vitally important that we make a stand against a second runway and protect the local towns, villages and countryside from potential social and environmental disaster. And if we can't achieve it through lobbying and persuasion, I'm sure we'll do it with peaceful direct action instead.

As a strong supporter of your cause and as one of your local Conservative MEPs, I send you all my very best wishes and much regret that I cannot be with you this evening but I am attending NATO Summit conferences in Bucharest.

BAA has now submitted its formal planning application for the second runway. This can only be at enormous cost to the local environment and to the well-being of people living for many miles around. And the so-called economic benefits rest on foundations of sand. Meanwhile, BAA regularly demonstrates that it is not capable of properly running its airports as they are today, let alone one that is twice the size of what it is now or that has pretensions to take us into a new era - just think Terminal 5!

In addition to all the other work that is going on, I have put questions to the European Commission on the implications for competition policy of BAA's ownership of three of London's airports and on the nature of retail operations at these airports. Every pressure helps our case.

I congratulate all of you that have been such stalwart devotees of the Stop Stansted Expansion Campaign. You have stuck with it in spite of ups and downs over the years. Maybe now our time has come and we can encourage an entirely new approach to air travel that does not blight some of the most beautiful areas of England and the lives of hundreds of thousands of people.You have my full support.

Keep up the fight. Good luck to you all!

Thank you very much for the invitation to speak at this event and my apologies for not being able to be there in person.

Whilst Stansted has brought jobs and prosperity and I have always supported activities focused on the existing runway, I have always made clear my opposition to a second runway.

My major concerns regard proposals to extend the night flying quota, environmental problems which could potentially damage the area and adequate investment in infrastructure to support transport links.

The number of flights at night is already substantial, increasing the quota will only serve to increase the noise and light pollution to a level that is unacceptable.

The environmental consequences from the building of a second runway would be a significant concern, aside from the loss of ancient woodland and damaging sensitive ecosystems.

Although I cannot be here this evening, I send my best wishes to all involved in the fight to stop the further expansion of Stansted Airport which (if allowed by the present Government) will lead to the destruction of more of the Essex countryside and scores of buildings, many of them historic. I am strongly opposed to plans for a second runway.

Firstly, I want to congratulate Stop Stansted Expansion on the really excellent campaign they run and on the very high quality of their contributions to last year's public inquiry. Everyone in the region who is adversely affected by Stansted Airport owes them a considerable debt of gratitude.

Secondly, I must reiterate my long standing and unqualified opposition to the continued growth of Stansted Airport

Under the National Air Traffic Service's recently proposed flight paths changes, residents of communities such as Lavenham, Thorpe Morieux, Cockfield and Monks Eleigh, to name only four, would have their peace shattered by aircraft noise even with the existing numbers of flights to and from the airport. Any expansion in traveller numbers will cause misery to many of the communities I represent in Suffolk. A second runway would also mean the permanent loss of a huge swathe of unspoilt countryside and ancient woodlands. As BAA eventually admitted the pollution impacts of their plans for increased flights will be far more serious than it originally claimed.

But Politicians do not just have a responsibility to speak up for the interests of their constituents; they must also balance the benefits of decisions for the whole of Britain.

And the growth of Stansted fails that second test too.

As Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee I am very conscious of the fact that it cannot be justified either on environmental or economic grounds. The more we know about the impact of climate change the more urgently we must make sure that the cost of air travel reflects that impact. And as was made abundantly clear at the Public Inquiry, as primarily a provider of low cost holiday flights, Stansted fuels Britain's tourism deficit by nearly £20 billion, which totally undermines claims that the airport is in our national or even regional economic interest.