Stephen's views on the expansion of Heathrow Airport

I oppose the construction of a third runway at Heathrow Airport and have been strongly lobbying the Government to prioritise tackling climate change above increasing air travel. Indeed, you may be interested to know that I was an early 'purchaser' of a piece of land near Heathrow.

The proposals are for a 2,200m third runway built north of Heathrow by 2020, and a sixth terminal, which will require the destruction of the entire village of Sipson. The Government claims that the additional runway will not breach noise limits because of future improvements to engines and so intends to lift the cap on take-offs and landings by 2030 from 605,000 a year to 702,000 per year.

Successive Conservative and Labour governments have allowed carbon emissions from air transport to rise and rise. Under the present Labour government aviation has become the fastest growing contributor to climate change and this year the Government gave the go ahead to a massive expansion of airport capacity at Heathrow Airport.

My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I believe it is time for a change. We oppose all further expansion of airport capacity in London and the South East, and I have personally opposed the expansion of Bristol airport. The Government's insistence on a third runway at Heathrow (and a second runway at Stansted) makes a mockery of any claims to have a climate change policy. We believe that the economic case has been overstated and that it is misguided to continue to allow carbon emissions from aviation to grow unchecked while the rest of the economy is expected to reduce emissions drastically.

Expansion is also unnecessary as capacity could be freed up by reducing domestic flights by building a high speed rail network (which the Liberal Democrats have committed to) and by reducing the number of transfer passengers at the airport (expected to make up 38% of all Heathrow's passengers by 2010). Air pollution is already terrible around Heathrow airport and expansion will only make matters worse.

Furthermore, not only will the expansion of Heathrow airport be damaging environmentally, recent reports about the financial stability of BAA indicate that it will be a fiscally imprudent endeavour. Commenting on BAA's announcement of a pre-tax loss of £784.7m for the first nine months of the year, Liberal Democrat Heathrow Spokesperson, Susan Kramer MP has said that, "Since BAA has refused to listen to local people and those concerned with climate change on their calls to abandon the third runway at Heathrow, perhaps now they will recognise financial reality and abandon this project for good."

The Liberal Democrats have proposed various ways to control the growth of aviation. I believe that a mixture of taxation and regulatory reforms are needed: there needs to be a "green tax switch" away from taxes on income towards taxes on pollution and resource depletion. Under the current government the share of national wealth absorbed by green taxes (mainly the climate change levy and fuel duties) has actually fallen from 3.6% of GDP in 1999 to 2.9% of GDP in 2006. But aviation is the most lightly taxed mode of transport. There are no taxes on aviation fuel. The current air passenger duty offers no incentive for airlines to optimise their flight patterns.

The Liberal Democrats believe that aviation fuel should be taxed to the same extent as land travel fuel. This will require cooperation with our fellow European Union members. We would replace air passenger duty with a tax on all aeroplane flights. This plane tax would be set according to the emissions level of the plane's engines. Such a tax would incentivise airlines to fill their planes. There could be fewer flights but the same number of passengers overall. It is likely that tax changes on their own will have a marginal effect on the total number of flights but it is surely right that air travel should pay a higher rate of tax to reflect the environmental damage it causes.

Air travel can be further restricted by other market mechanisms. The landing slots at airports should be auctioned so that a true market price is set. It is ludicrous that the current landing fees are subsidised by airports such as Heathrow, which derives its revenue from retail outlets, and Bristol, which makes much of its profit from car park charges. Aviation must not be allowed to operate in the proposed cross industry emissions trading scheme, under which companies can buy up unused quotas from other low carbon use producers.

All taxes and restrictions must apply to air freight, as well as air passenger travel. Just over a third of all aircraft journeys are freight related.

Lastly, you may be interested to know that I have signed several Early Day Motions regarding the expansion of Heathrow Airport, including 1426, 1428 (which I co-sponsored) and 339, which states.

"That this House notes the Government's commitment given in the 2003 Aviation White Paper, The Future of Air Transport to reduce noise impacts and to ensure that air quality and environmental standards are met before proceeding with a third runway at Heathrow Airport; further notes the assurance given by the Prime Minister on 12 November 2008 that support for a third runway at Heathrow is subject to strict environmental conditions; further notes that Heathrow Airport is already in breach of the European Air Quality Directive to be implemented by 2010; welcomes the statement by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that these environmental commitments should be honoured; supports the Chairman of the Environment Agency's decision to oppose the third runway on environmental grounds; and calls upon the Government not to proceed with the third Heathrow runway or mixed-mode and to put the matter to a vote on the floor of the House."

I believe that action on climate change is the biggest challenge facing my generation of politicians, and that control of aviation must play a vital part in our sustainable future.