Climate Change

Part of the debate – in the House of Commons at 5:04 pm on 5 November 2009.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Andrew Slaughter Andrew Slaughter Labour, Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush 5:04, 5 November 2009

This has been a wide-ranging debate. Surveying just the contributions from those on the Conservative Benches, we went from Mr. Gummer, who proved that he is excited, as always, about tackling climate change and who prayed in aid the Pope and denounced creationism, to Mr. Lilley, who gave us the benefit of his list. I am only sorry that he did not sing his list, as I am old enough to remember him doing in days gone by.

However, it is understandable why we ranged across such a variety of subjects, because the issue affects us, and needs to tackled, at all levels. As this is a debate in the run-up to Copenhagen, we have considered governmental and international challenges. Before making one or two points about that, however, I would like to start with some more parochial issues, which can be dealt with at the individual and local levels.

Let me start by praising the 10:10 campaign, which has been mentioned, which is an accessible way for individuals, local authorities and the Government to make a practical short-term difference. I have signed up, as I understand the Cabinet and Departments have. More importantly, the Government have promised an additional £20 million to ensure that targets to reduce emissions can be achieved.

I will come to that when I talk about what local government is or is not doing, but I am sorry that neither Conservative council in my constituency has signed up to 10:10. I know that all Labour councils have been urged to sign up, and I am sorry that many Conservative councils are not doing that. What is required is not just to urge people to sign up, but to facilitate them. The fact that the Government are making grants available for insulation and the fact that we now have feed-in tariffs mean that it is possible for people to take those steps.

One way in which I hope that I am making an effort locally is by joining the Airplot scheme, which, for those who are not familiar with it, is the purchase of a piece of land on the site of the proposed third runway at Heathrow. Many of my constituents have signed up as beneficial owners, with the support of local environmental organisations, as well as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. Later this month we will plant some apple trees there, because it is on the site where Cox's apples were originally bred-is "bred" the right word? No, possibly not.

The scheme has received a lot of publicity, but it has a serious intention. Aviation, and particularly the third runway at Heathrow, is something of a blind spot for the Government. I recently read an editorial in The Economist that is exactly a year old, but which, perhaps not surprisingly, was reprinted last week. It concluded thus:

"the biggest reason why" the Prime Minister

"should hold off deciding Heathrow's future is that the government's own Competition Commission ruled...that BAA's monopoly of London airports should be broken up. Anticipating a direct order, the airport operator has...put up Gatwick for sale. Any new owner is likely to seek permission to build a second runway there to compete with Heathrow...That would give London...new capacity at a lower environmental cost than expanding Heathrow."

It is no surprise that that has come true, as it pretty obviously would. As soon as Gatwick was out of BAA's hands, the potential for expansion there was clear.

That does not mean that I am advocating a second runway at Gatwick, although that would obviously be much more sensible and environmentally friendly than having another one at Heathrow. However, what has happened shows the complete confusion in the various views on aviation that we hear, and that goes for both parties. For example, the Greenpeace website says:

"cabinet ministers Ed Miliband and Hilary Benn...and an increasing number of Labour MPs have all spoken out against the plans to build a third runway at Heathrow," whereas we had one Opposition Front Bencher saying only a couple of months ago that the plans for a third runway would be revisited if a Conservative Government were elected. At the same time, we had Boris Johnson initially saying that Heathrow would be closed and a new airport built in the Thames estuary, whereas he now says that that new airport will be in addition to a two-runway Heathrow, and that we will have an additional four runways in the south-east. This is a chaotic situation for aviation policy to be in, for all the parties.

Annotations

John Byng
Posted on 6 Nov 2009 10:49 am (Report this annotation)

I am glad that Andrew Slaughter is against airport expansion for the sake of the environment. But it is a pity that he should have diluted the force of his argument by suggesting that a new runnway at Gatwick would be less damaging. The consequences of a new runnway at any of the London airports are outrageous and send precisely the wrong signals on climate change. It is ridiculous to ask the general public to switch off lights at the same time as building runnways.

The economic case for new runnways is also false. Oil is more difficult to find and will become much more expensive as the economies of the world recover so demand for air travel will decline. This demand is also falsly inflated by unfair tax concession worth £9 billion a year in the UK alone. Every other industry is paying for these concessions which is not only unfair but also inefficient.

It is time the Government recognised that air transport needs to contract for the sake of the environment and the economy.