Westminster Impacting on Your Life In Twickenham

Written by Vincent Cable MP and published in Online Exclusive on Tue 6th Jan 2004

Several decisions made in Westminster in the last few weeks could have profound effects on life in the borough.

First, the Transport Secretary's decision on airport expansion will affect those who use Heathrow for travel, who work there or are concerned about its environmental impact, manifested in airport noise or air pollution.

The important new development is that environmental limits have been established. It has become clear that relentless expansion of flights is leading to emissions of NOx from aircraft and vehicle traffic, which are not merely a health hazard but could become illegal under statutory

obligations. That is why the go ahead has been given to a runway at Stansted while a new runway at Heathrow is conditional on radical action to reduce pollution.

The government has also accepted that it can no longer operate on the basis of 'predict and provide' not least because air travel is extraordinarily cheap compared to other modes of travel. Airlines, unlike motorists, do not pay for the economic and environmental cost of travel

since there is no taxation of aviation fuel and landing charges are very low. This will start to change.

That said a reasonable balance has, I think, now been struck which allows for the expansion in travel which a growing economy generates, recognises the importance of Heathrow for employment and yet respects environmental priorities. What worries me more is that the government is considering conceding to the airlines an end to runway alternation in order to allow many more flights; whatever respite there is for people under the take-off and landing paths will be diminished.

Another important environmental landmark was the unanimous decision of the council planing sub-committee to reject an application by T-Mobile for a new telecoms mast over looking St Edmunds school in Whitton on the grounds that there is a strong 'public perception of health risk'. I spoke for the residents who were exceptionally well organised and armed with petitions and the latest scientific analysis. The decision goes to appeal and, if the school and residents win, it will be a major, national, landmark case which will force the companies to be much more selective in their choice of sites. It would not be possible again to site a mast outside a school as has already happened at Hampton Juniors. If, however, the battle is lost any future mast application will have to be decided exclusively on narrow planning grounds.

Finally, I secured a debate in the last week of parliament on the funding of the Metropolitan Police. Policing and law and order has been a top priority issue in the borough and there have been modest improvements recently in the police presence in some neighbourhoods. We have moved on somewhat from the 1990's when the deep cuts in borough police numbers led to the end of beat policing altogether. It is essential that we build on the improvements helped by the new Community Safety Officers, or para-police. I fear however that some re-juggling of police national budgets to favour country areas could cost the Metropolitan Police over £50 million and put back the improvements in ward level policing. And the money intended to cover national obligations simply does not cover policing events like the Bush visit (which cost £4 million) and increased anti terrorist duty.

Unless there is a fresh look at the figures, as I have urged ministers to do, London - and local - policing could go backwards.