No Third Runway At Heathrow!

5.31.50pm GMT Tue 26th Feb 2008

• NICK Clegg, speaking at the rally against Heathrow's proposed third runway on Feb 25: "There are only three words that need to be said today. Three words that should resonate through the walls of this hall, and into the ears of every government minister. Three words that should be scrawled across the sky. No Third Runway.

The feeling and energy in this hall today is incredible. Thousands of people are coming together week after week to fight this in protests and rallies across London. And at every one there is a sense of total determination and total commitment to stop the government's plans and stop Heathrow from expanding. We've got to fight hard. But I think together we can win this thing. The case for extending Heathrow airport is so threadbare it's embarrassing. They've overstated the economic benefits. Which is no surprise when half the reports they've based their case on were funded by the aircraft industry. The government seem to think London can't survive without Heathrow's never ending expansion. But Heathrow's range of destinations has already fallen and I don't see London suffering. London's thriving. This is one of the greatest cities in the world. And international travel is thriving too. All with no third runway.

So what planet are they on, these ministers? Wherever it is, it's clear from the Adding Capacity at Heathrow consultation document they don't speak English there. Seriously - have you read this thing? What are "exceedences"? "Arrival swathes"? "A noise contour limit"? Or my personal favourite: "conceptual airspace". It sounds like an entry for the Turner Prize. And not a very good one. It took me a few minutes to realise, when reading this, that when they talk about "air transport movements" they actually mean "aeroplanes". And look at the questions they ask. "To what extent do you agree or disagree that the environmental conditions are still appropriate for the revised BAA proposal for a 2,200m runway?" That's one of the shorter ones. Where is the box that just says "No, No, No!" But you know it would be funnier if this document wasn't a licence to ruin people's lives. 750 homes destroyed and families evicted. Millions of people disturbed by thousands more flights. 100,000 children's education affected by the noise. Children who will find it harder to learn to read because of the planes. This from a government that promised Education, Education, Education.

The bare truth is that aeroplane noise ruins lives. It cuts productivity. It interrupts sleep. It even increases the chances of heart disease. If these proposals go ahead, there'll be a flight every 90 seconds. An end to the half-day of peace that west Londoners cherish as their only respite. More and more cars clogging up the roads to the airport. More toxic fumes. And more carbon pumped out to destroy our planet. The third runway will be the source of more carbon dioxide than the whole of Kenya. Aircraft already account for 13% of Britain's greenhouse gases. Air travel is the fastest growing contributor to carbon emissions - while every other industry is cutting back. The government will never be taken seriously on climate change until they say no to Heathrow.

Illness. Stress. Congestion. Climate change. How can the government claim that adds up to a good idea? It adds up to a disaster - and it's got to be stopped. I'm not a Luddite. I don't want Heathrow closed down. It can and should be an international hub - a place where air travel meets high speed rail connections to the rest of Britain. But every time they've expanded it they've said "this is the last time. Honest". And it never is. I say enough is enough. The last time should be the last time. Full stop. The airline industry should accept: this is the infrastructure they've got. Deal with it. People's lives are more important than extra flights to a few extra places. So - no more caveats. No more rigged "environmental tests". No more ifs. No more buts. And No Third Runway." [www.libdems.org.uk]