Return to: Home | Politics | Environment

Heathrow plan attacked

Chris Ames

Published 29 October 2008

Amid growing rumours of a Cabinet split over Heathrow expansion ex-culture secretary turned Environment Agency chief Chris Smith criticises plans to defer new pollution limits

There are rumours of a cabinet split over Heathrow's expansion

Former Labour cabinet minister Chris Smith has weighed into the row over controversial plans to expand London Heathrow criticising the government for trying to delay new pollution rules.

Environment secretary Hilary Benn has confirmed that Britain intends to seek a derogation from the European Union air quality directive for up to five years. Smith, a former culture secretary who is now chair of the Environment Agency, linked this to predictions that pollution at Heathrow will breach legally binding limits in the directive, due to come into force in 2010.

He asked: “How will the further expansion of Heathrow, and the inevitable and detrimental consequences on air quality and emissions, help in meeting a target that it is predicted we will exceed?”

Smith’s comments come as it emerges that senior minsters, including Benn, are opposed to Heathrow expansion. Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon had been expected to give the go-ahead for a third runway, to open in 2020, but it has been reported that the Cabinet is now deeply split on the issue. One source told newstatesman.com that supporters of the runway are increasingly isolated in the government.

Proposals put forward by the Department for Transport (DfT) would see increased flights from around 2012 through “mixed mode” operation – allowing take-off and landing on both runways at the same time. Ministers have acknowledged that expansion will only be possible if pollution limits in the directive are not breached around the airport.

But documents obtained by Greenpeace under the freedom of information rules show that the DfT predicted that levels of nitrogen dioxide at Heathrow will breach the directive in 2010. DfT officials subsequently worked with Mr Benn’s Defra department to ensure that negotiations over the directive “take account of Heathrow position”.

In a letter to Liberal Democrat transport spokesman Norman Baker, Mr Benn has confirmed that he expects to ask the European Commission to allow Britain to delay nitrogen dioxide limits, possibly until 2015. Mr Benn denied that anticipated breaches at Heathrow were the sole reason for this, although he did not deny that Britain could comply earlier than 2015 if it were not for Heathrow expansion. He told Mr Baker “The problem is one of existing pollution from traffic in London, including Heathrow, and in other major cities across the UK.”

Lord Smith signalled that the Environment Agency will continue to challenge the government over the directive. He said: “The government are entitled to ask for a derogation, but this does not come without strings attached. During the forthcoming Defra consultation on the new action plan required as part of the derogation process, the Environment Agency will remain vigilant as the watchdog for promoting environmental sustainability.”

The Environment Agency works to deliver the government’s air quality strategy in England and Wales. Earlier this year, it criticised the DfT’s Heathrow consultation, including claims that pollution could be reduced to comply with the directive after 2015.

In July a delegation of local authority leaders and MEPs asked EU environment commissioner Stavros Dimas not to allow Britain to stall on the directive. Green Party MEP Caroline Lucas said: "When I met Commissioner Dimas earlier this year to discuss Heathrow, he agreed that a UK request for derogation on the Directive would undermine the spirit of the targets set by the EU. Ultimately, what we need are clearer skies, cleaner air and a government which takes its responsibilities seriously by adhering to the EU legislation put in place to protect human health and the environment."

Lucas said it was “embarrassing” for a government that is attempting to position itself as a world leader on tackling climate change to be seeking a delay.


 
 

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

9 comments from readers

Carl Jones
29 October 2008 at 15:47

Maybe Caroline Lucas could outline the greeens job creation plan for a failed Heathrow?

William
29 October 2008 at 16:33

More to the point what is the European Directive on these details. After all this is the East of England Regional Assembly sphere of influence. OK it is non-elected but when did that ever stop European Union from getting its oar into our Democracy.

Carl Jones
29 October 2008 at 17:05

William, Europe wants to devalue the Southeast. By restricting airline capacity, business will move away to other European locations taking the polution with them.LOL

For instance, Britain is consucting a semi-secret war with Russia...the British elite are very worried about anything that could move political power Eastward, especially with all that oil and gas.

Carl Jones
29 October 2008 at 19:00

As parliament debated climate change (aka GLOBAL WARMING) today, snow fell on parliament in October for the first time since 1922!!LOL

I was talking with and Australian the other day and he told me that Sydney has just had its coldest October day for 40 years.....

.....so much for global warming.LOL

sweety
30 October 2008 at 03:04

Environment secretary Hilary Benn

Dear god, nothing can save us now! He will probably allow the Russians exclusive use of runway five. He gave the Chinese with a trillion in reserves some of our money, because hes a rich toff, but he socialist and a really nice guy.

richardatkins
30 October 2008 at 08:57

Heathrow has been around for decades and currently it is disorganised, scruffy and run-down (the last time I went there was 1 year ago) the only thing to improve was T5, which was managed into a disaster before it worked. I am against airport expansion on environmental principle, but the simple clear fact that this particular airport struggles daily with its current demand and that past expansion has proved to be more of a failure than success does make me question why anyone would seriously consider the idea.

For those who believe that a larger capacity for flights would help business - I have looked but could not find any statistics on the Heathrow/BAA websites to support that Heathrow generates money from business apart from a £5bn figure- which reads incredibly large - amounting to £74 per person (£5bn / £67.3m = £74.3) - considering many use tickets only costing about £20 and are flying to spend their money abroad I do not believe this to be true.

Claire
30 October 2008 at 10:18

The economic case for expanding Heathrow is weak and the environmental case against expansion is very strong in terms of health. We need to protect the health of this and future generations. No expansion is necessary - it will be hugely detrimental.

ChrisB
31 October 2008 at 16:56

What everyone seems to miss is that these standards are to protect people's health and weren't thought up by Europe (which people seem to forget includes us) in some machiavellian plot to move power east. If you want another runway then put some more effort and money into reducing the local emissions and the impacts on local people. As for Carl, well i'm amazed you could tell it was snowing with your head so deeply planted in the sand.........

cwb
31 October 2008 at 21:01

The truth here is a bigger Heathrow will cause an increase in asthma for our kids, make outside activity a miserable experience (don't bother with Kew or Chiswick, or syon House, Richmond park, ealing Common etc - nor Clapham or Battersea. I simply don't understand why we don't go for a shinny new airport which would meet tomorrows demand and also reduce impacts on people, jobs would not be lost but would of course geographically move eastwards. West London could then develope the space into a new town and business environment to everyones benefit. Only UK plc could go for a 3rd world plan and then say we need to compete with those pesky europeans with their new airports built in areas that could expand and also to minimise human misery. A vote for Heathrow Growth is an act of barbarism and inhumanity.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website

Read More

Vote!

Was the government wrong to sack David Nutt?

Suggest a question

View comments

© New Statesman 1913 – 2009

Tracker