Heathrow needs a third runway

Heathrow needs a third runway

01 Oct 2008

Its proponents argue that a third runway at Heathrow will help Britain to remain one of the centres of the business and intellectual worlds; its detractors say that, in light of proposed 'polluter pays' air fares and a growing awareness of the environmental costs of aviation, a third runway is not required. The panel discuss the merits and pitfalls of the proposed third runway at Heathrow.

Arguing in favour of the motion are Tom Kelly, Lord Soley and Colin Stanbridge.
Tom Kelly begins by arguing that Heathrow is working at full capacity, and that a new runway has not been built since the Second World War. Meanwhile, competitor nations often have more runways, and this is a major draw for business. Lord Soley continues by arguing that just because London is the global hub now, it will not necessarily be one in the future. He believes that the UK needs an integrated transport network - other European nations are already investing heavily in their air industries. Furthermore, he states, other countries will accommodate the flights if Heathrow does not, so the result of the decision will have no impact on the environment. Colin Stanbridge argues that Heathrow is a big problem for international business people, and that without some sort of expansion service will get worse. He doe not agree that it is only in the interests of the wealthy, as encouraging the best brains into London benefits every person as businesses generally will be more successful.

Arguing against the motion are Mark Lynas, Sir Peter Hall and Vince Cable. Mark Lynas argues that the problem is how to reconcile the desire of people to fly with the impact that air travel has on climate change. Aviation will increasingly become the main source of carbon emissions if we are to meet our 2050 reduction requirements, as electric or nuclear powered planes will not be viable in the medium term. Therefore, the only option is demand management, and the first step is to maintain or reduce supply rather than increase it. Sir Peter Hall argues that London needs a proper airport that can accommodate modest growth - however, Heathrow is not that place. London needs a new airport that is designed properly, and time could be bought by linking Heathrow with Europe via high speed rail, while designing a new airport to be built in twenty years time. Vince Cable argues that the future of the economy is unknown, and that both major opposition parties are against the expansion. Therefore, the third runway will not happen. He states that the political class is now environmentally aware, and that aviation will eventually be charged based on its environmental cost, which will drive down demand, and that any expansion should be based upon sustainable environmental limits.

First vote: 176 For, 302 Against, 164 Don't know

Final vote: 247 For, 396 Against, 12 Don't know.

The motion is defeated by 149 votes.

BUY THE DVD