§ Mr. MackinlayTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assurances have been given to the Government by(a) BAA, (b) British Airways and (c) British Midland in the five years prior to the recent submission by British Airways to his Department concerning a third runway that they would not seek additional runway capacity at Heathrow; and if he will make a statement. [124845]
§ Mr. Mullin[holding answer 7 June 2000]Over the last five years, none of the organisations mentioned by my hon. Friend have given assurances to the Government directly that they would not seek additional runway capacity at Heathrow.
During the public inquiry into BAA's planning application for a fifth terminal at Heathrow, BAA and British Airways made reference to additional runway capacity at Heathrow in their evidence.
BAA stated that
423Wit believes that this is a matter entirely for Government, although it is the company's view that the local communities around Heathrow should be given assurances in respect of another runway. BAA would urge the Government to rule out any additional runway at Heathrow, and BAA would support a recommendation by the inquiry Inspector in his report to the Secretary of State that the Government should rule it out. Indeed, BAA invites the Inspector to make such a recommendation.British Airways, as part of their closing submission to the public inquiry, did not advocate a third runway at Heathrow because the proposed fifth terminal did not require it. They stated that
an additional runway at Heathrow could have the potential to be of national importance, and, in BA's submission, it would therefore be wrong to prejudge the issues involved in the absence of a comprehensive understanding of all the material circumstances prevailing at that time, including Government policy, environmental impacts and the aviation and economic cases for such a development.British Midland have made no specific reference to additional runway capacity at Heathrow.