On Monday 15th October Martin Dillon, Chair,  made his closing speech at the Stansted Inquiry on behalf of Much Hadham Parish Council.  The speech which took many hours of research and preparation can be read below.

The Inspector's report should be available by Christmas and a decision is expected early 2008.

 Closing Speech on behalf of  Much Hadham Parish Council

1. Throughout this Inquiry BAA has repeatedly argued that the Government's policy that the existing runway at Stansted should be expanded to its maximum use is decisive. The repetition is like a mantra. BAA has almost summarily dismissed any contrary argument on the basis that the Government has already taken the argument into account when deciding on its policy and has decided that, on balance, it is outweighed by the need for further runway capacity in the south-east. Mr Rhodes' evidence on behalf of BAA, for example, can be summarised as: "What are we all here for? The Government's policy is clear and it must be followed". Indeed, BAA's reliance on the Government's policy has been so strong that one has to wonder whether BAA would have appealed against Uttlesford DC's decision if the Government's policy had been different or if the Government had not adopted any policy regarding the expansion of the existing runway.
2. Of course the Government's policy is a material consideration, but as Mr Fawcett has accepted in his affidavit filed as part of the DfT's evidence in the London Borough of Wandsworth Case it is legitimate for the planning authority to frustrate Government policy by refusing planning permission where, on balance, the arguments against development outweigh the benefits.
3. Much Hadham Parish Council considers that the arguments against the expansion of the existing runway far outweigh whatever benefits the expansion might bring and therefore urges you, Sir, to recommend to the Secretaries of State that Uttlesford DC's decision should be upheld. I shall only comment briefly on some of the issues, which in my Parish Council's view justify and support Uttlesford DC's decision. I shall leave it for other parties with greater knowledge to comment in much greater detail.
4. Stansted is primarily an airport serving UK residents using cheap flights to go on holiday. They of course spend their holiday money outside the UK. Stansted does of course provide some financial benefits to the UK economy, but I cannot see how anyone can argue, as the Government appears to do, that Stansted provides a net benefit to the UK economy. The Government as far as I know has not produced any detailed figures to justify its assertion, which I consider flies in the face of common sense.

Surface Access
 
5. First, a few comments regarding access by road to Stansted.
6. I understand that the car parks at Stansted can accommodate more cars than either the car parks at Heathrow or the car parks at Gatwick. This is a clear indication that BAA regards access by public transport to and from Stansted as insufficient. This is confirmed by BAA's own forecasts that the current level of access by car to Stansted, which is over 60% of passengers a year, is likely to continue. This is of great benefit to BAA because of the revenue derived from car parking.
7. May I give one example to demonstrate the deficiencies in access by public transport to Stansted. Except on Sundays, when there is no service, there is a bus service about every two hours from Much Hadham to Bishop's Stortford Station. If I were planning to fly from Stansted and I were prepared to take the time, I could depending upon the time of the flight catch a bus and then the train to Stansted. However, the last bus to Much Hadham leaves from Bishop's Stortford Station at 7.25pm, and unless my return flight were due in the morning or the early afternoon I would be reluctant, with possible flight delays, to risk being stranded at Bishop's Stortford Station. In normal traffic conditions Stansted Airport is only about 20 minutes' drive from Much Hadham, and you can well understand that I would therefore prefer to drive to the Airport both to save time and to avoid the risk of being stranded. The facts will of course be different for each passenger living in a rural area depending upon where he or she lives, but the arguments in favour of using your car will I expect be the same in the great majority of cases, particularly as according to Mr Foreshew (CD 700 28 September 2007 on page 18) the peak arrival time at Stansted is between 4am and 6am when there is hardly any public transport.
8. If BAA obtains permission to expand the use of the existing runway, then on the basis of BAA's forecasts there will be increased traffic on the roads leading to Stansted. Those roads already carry lots of traffic leading to jams at peak times. The M11 north of Stansted only has two carriageways in each direction and is particularly prone to traffic jams. The Government wishes to see increased housing in the Harlow, Stansted and Cambridge corridor, and if the Government's housing targets are met, then this will also lead to increased traffic at the same time as there are increasing numbers of passengers on the roads to and from Stansted. I appreciate that the Highways Agency only considers that minor modifications to the roads are at present necessary to accommodate the increased road traffic forecast at Stansted if BAA obtains permission for R1, but the Agency has only been concentrating on the roadwork in the immediate vicinity of the Airport, in particular on the A120 and the M11, and has not apparently considered the damage to the quality of life that increased traffic brings like more traffic noise, carbon emissions and air quality.
9. The roads in East Hertfordshire, particularly the minor roads, have been allowed to fall into a dreadfully bad state of repair, with uneven surfaces and potholes. My Parish Council, and I am sure other Parish Councils in East hertfordshire, have repeatedly complained to Hertfordshire Highways about the state of the roads in their villages only to be told that Hertfordshire Highways would love to carry out the necessary repairs but there is not the money to do so. My experience of the roads in Essex is that they are better. Even with current traffic levels I do not see much prospect of local road surfaces improving, but increased traffic is of course likely to make the position worse.
10. If BAA were prepared actively to take steps to reduce the numbers of passengers going to and from Stansted by road, then there is a simple expedient that BAA could adopt. They could start by closing some of the car parks. The closures could perhaps be accompanied by the active marketing of a booking system for car parking. I appreciate that the prospect of the closure of car parks at Stansted is a step that BAA would not want to contemplate because of the loss of income from car parking that would be involved and perhaps because of the risk that the closure would put off passengers from using Stansted. However, closing car parks is the most obvious direct measure to force passengers out of their cars and on to public transport. The closure of car parks would need to be accompanied by a charge being made for dropping off all but disabled passengers outside the Terminal. BAA is apparently in favour of such a charge for G2 but has not for some reason suggested the proposal for G1.
11. The possibility of closing down car parks was put to Mr Foreshew in cross-examination (CD 700 28 September 2007 on page 85). He said that to do this would be against what BAA understood as local policy, which requires the Airport to accommodate all [parking] demands on the airport. The answer is not in point. If a passenger does not or cannot use a car to get to Stansted, BAA obviously does not have an obligation to provide the passenger with a car parking space. On 3 October (page 69) Mr Humphries made the point that if a passenger had not parked a car at the Airport while on holiday for however long it was, he or she would probably be using the car to shop etc and by implication causing carbon emissions etc near home. Maybe. I am not sure how seriously Mr Humphries was making the point, but the issue is the damage to the quality of life caused by so many passengers using a car to get to Stansted, and I do not think the possible saving of carbon emissions elsewhere is a justification for not adopting the most obvious measure to encourage passengers out of the cars in accordance with Government policy.
12. If BAA is to be given permission to expand the use of the existing runway, then I suggest that a condition should be imposed requiring the gradual reduction in car parking spaces coupled with a charge for dropping off passengers at the terminal. This will reduce car traffic with its wear and tear on the surrounding roads, its pollution and its erosion of the quality of life.
13. Secondly, rail access.
14. In his letter of 1 October 2007 Mr Stuart Baker of the DfT has acknowledged that some of the services on the West Anglia Main Line are "already congested". This is certainly the experience of commuters at peak times. Mr Baker has said that the DfT has identified the WAML "as a priority for capacity enhancement" and that the DfT is looking for outputs that "can be delivered via a coherent proposition for the entire route, and not just part of it, for example in relation to Stansted Airport." Mr Baker has made it clear that possible solutions are train lengthening to 12 cars on the Liverpool Street to Stansted Airport and Cambridge services plus associated infrastructure works, but that it is not for the DfT to make detailed proposals, which will only be known in March 2009.
 
15. The achievement of the Government's housing targets for the Harlow/Cambridge corridor will gradually result in more passengers on the "already congested" WAML. It does not make sense to increase the pressure on the WAML before capacity enhancements are in place. Though Mr Baker has said that the proposals will be known in March 2009, I think a fair comment is that this is the DfT's present timetable and that, as with many projects involving the Government, the timetable may slip. Furthermore, the publication of the enhancement proposals is only a first step, and even if the proposals are known in March 2009, it may not be for some years  after 2009 before the necessary infrastructure works have been carried out and the new carriages are in service. The carriages have to be ordered and their cost financed, so that either they can be used on the WAML or the new carriages can be used on another line so that the carriages in use on that line can be used on the WAML.
16. BAA is not forecasting much, if any, increase by 2014 in the percentage of passengers using the Stansted Express compared with 2006. The forecast is based on a number of factors, including the assumption that coach services to and from London will continue to be much cheaper than the Stansted Express and the assumption that more passengers living to the north of Stansted will use the Airport. The single tunnel on the spur to the Airport only has capacity for 12 trains per hour or 6 return journeys. Up to 5 return journeys are taken up by the Stansted Express and by the service to Stratford, with only one return journey available for trains to Cambridge and other destinations to the north of Stansted. In my commuting days I have often stood on a cold platform furiously watching an empty or half empty Stansted Express rushing by. The Government's policy is quite rightly, having regard to climate change, to get people out of their cars and on to trains. If BAA consider that more passengers from north of Stansted will be using the Airport, why BAA does not encourage the train company to reduce the number of STEX trains each hour and increase the trains from the Airport to Cambridge and to the other destinations to the north?
17. If BAA is to be granted permission to expand the use of the existing runway, then I consider that this should only be on the basis that the increase takes place in stages on the fulfilment of Grampion Conditions relating to  the provision of enhanced capacity on the line between Liverpool Street, Stansted Airport and Cambridge. Public infrastructure projects tend to be delayed, and if no Grampion Conditions are imposed, there is a risk that more and more passengers will be using the Stansted Express causing more and more congestion on the WAML, particularly bearing in mind that Stansted Express trains are given priority over other trains on the WAML. It is not clear when Crossrail will be operational, but when it is, you would expect that the direct train connections to Liverpool Street from so many more locations would lead to more passengers on the Stansted Express.

Passenger Numbers

18. The reason and justification for a cap on passenger numbers at airports is primarily to give a guide as to the requirements for surface access. The number of transfer passengers should not therefore be a consideration in fixing the cap.
19. It is not clear to me whether the current cap of 25 mppa distinguishes between transfer passengers and non-transfer passengers. In other words, is a passenger who arrives at Stansted from Destination A and transfers to a flight from Stansted to Destination B treated as two passengers or as one passenger for the purpose of calculating the 25 mppa cap?
20. My Parish Council entirely agrees with Uttlesford DC that the current passenger cap should be maintained, but if it is to be increased, then I consider that in fixing a revised cap a distinction should be drawn between transfer and non-transfer passengers. The simplest way to do this would be to provide for an annual cap of x mppa excluding transfer passengers.
21. Currently about 10% of the passengers at Stansted are transfer passengers. On the basis of a throughput of 35 mppa by 2014, BAA's forecast is that the percentage of transfer passengers will increase to 17%, so that there will then be 29.17 million non-transfer passengers per annum. BAA's forecast has been challenged as being too high, but if BAA's appeal is to succeed, then I think the forecast should be accepted, so that as a maximum BAA should be permitted an annual cap of 29.17 million passengers excluding transfer passengers. In my view BAA only, at best, needs sufficient headroom, as I shall explain, to allow Stansted to operate normally until the completion of the Inquiry into R2, and I suggest therefore if the appeal is successful a cap of 27 mppa excluding transfer passengers. If we assume that about 10% of the passengers at Stansted continue to be transfer passengers, then this proposal is much the same as the airlines' proposal of a cap of 30 mppa including transfer passengers.

 Aircraft Noise

22. For those living near an airport ground noise as well as aircraft noise is a problem, but for those like the residents of MH, who are too far away from Stansted to be affected by ground noise, aircraft noise is the greatest blight on their daily lives and the greatest threat to their quality of life.
23. The Leq approach is satisfactory for the measurement of more or less continuous noise like road traffic, but it should not, for reasons that, Sir, you have heard at length from me and from others, be used as the sole approach for the measurement of the noise made by aircraft when they are not constantly flying overhead. I do not accept Mr Charles' claim that "we have to use Leq because it is the Government's guidance to us" (CD 700 20 June 2007 on page 39).
24. I only wish to make a few comments on aircraft noise. I do not wish to repeat all the criticisms that have been made of the concept of 57dbA Leq contours as the only measure of aircraft noise; briefly, the criticisms are that the concept is based on an average of 16 hours, that the concept disguises bundling, that the concept does not record loudness and that it fails to record the intrusion of noise events, their duration, their frequency and their characteristics. It defeats me why the Government and BAA wish to place such reliance on a system based on an average when nobody I have ever met, who is upset by aircraft noise, has complained about periods of silence when there are no aircraft overhead..
25. It is worth emphasising first of all that even Mr Charles conceded in cross-examination that Leq will "conceal localised impacts" (CD 700  20 June 2007 on page 42).
26. Most of the complaints from residents in MH relate to departing flights. You will remember that on 4 September I handed over details printed off from WebTrack of the flights taking off from Stansted and passing over MH between 6.03 and 7.07am on 6 August 2007. There were 18 flights during this period of just over one hour varying from a maximum height over MH of 4478ft and a minimum height of 2746ft, with an average height of 3250ft. Nobody I suggest can argue that this is not intrusive at a time when most of us are still asleep or in bed.
27. The report produced on BAA' s instructions by AAD on 19 December 2005 (CD 171) shows that: 
(a)Average aircraft noise events measured at Much Hadham reduced from 71.9dBA in three month period in 2000 to 69.3dBA in the three month period in 2004, which is a barely perceptible reduction of 2.6dBAs;
 (b) In the three month period in 2000 there were 4152 separate noise events above 65dBA and that in the three month period in 2004 there were 3762 noise events above 65dBA, a reduction of 9.4% compared with 2000; 
 (c)  The percentage of noise events over 70dBA in the three month period in 2000 was 57.2% whereas the percentage in the three month period in 2004 was 34%.               
28. The improvements result, as the authors have explained, from the use of more modern and quieter aircraft. Nonetheless in September, October and November 2004 there were still more than 1250 noise events above 65dBA on average per month. That amounts to a lot of aircraft disturbance for the residents of Much Hadham. That disturbance is continuing and getting worse because since 2004 there have been more and more flights, and the increasing disturbance that they cause has more than outweighed any advantage gained by the introduction of quieter aircraft.
29. Though aircraft have become quieter since the unit was last installed in Green Tye in November 2004, I consider it likely that a unit installed now would in a comparable period record similar results and perhaps even a greater number of aircraft noise events above 65 dBA. I say this because aircraft above Green Tye are normally above 3000ft but below 4000ft; because there are now more aircraft using Buzzard than in 2004; and because the indication of LAmax levels in Table 18 on p 41 of Mr Turner's proof supports this conclusion showing at 4000ft 66 dBA for a A319, 70 dBA for a B737-800 and 74 dBA for a B747- 400.
30. There is no report recording LAmax levels for aircraft flying to the west of MH on their way to land at Stansted, but AAD's Wareside report (CD 408.4) provides some guidance in this respect because the aircraft fly over Wareside a few seconds after flying to the west of MH. When to the west of MH aircraft are about 3000ft, and at this altitude the LAmax levels shown in the Wareside report are confirmed by the indicated LAmax levels in Table 19 of Mr Turner's proof (p 42). In fact the environment to the west of MH is very quiet with no roads of any significance though there are aircraft flying to and from Luton, and aircraft noise events may therefore make a greater contribution to the average level of total noise than at Wareside. Certainly the noise from aircraft landing at Stansted is becoming more and more intrusive, with some of them coming much closer to MH High Street.
31. If aircraft keep within the Buzzard flight path, they should not fly over St Elizabeth's, but the details printed off from WebTrack (and annexed to Mr McMullen's Supplementary Proof) show that between 30 June 2007 and 4 July 2009 some 27 aircraft did fly over St Elizabeth's. BAA has not accepted that as many as 27 aircraft flew over St Elizabeth's during this period; BAA maintain that the correct number is four. The difference may in part be explained because BAA has only counted aircraft that have flown directly over the buildings at St Elizabeth's. If so, I do not consider this is the right approach because aircraft noise does of course travel some distance.
32. As Mr McMullen has explained in his evidence, aircraft flying over St Elizabeth's may cause "outages" in the monitoring system. If a resident has a seizure or a noise event is registered in a particular room, a red light appears on the monitoring system as a visual prompt to the person watching the system. A physical check of the relevant resident(s) must then be carried out to  find out what has caused the red light to come on, whether it is a seizure or an overflying aircraft or something else. It is only after the physical check has been carried out that the visual monitoring system becomes effective again after being reset.
33. An overflying aircraft may of course trigger the red lights indicating noise events in more than just one room. If red lights were triggered by an overflying aircraft in several rooms, then if a resident in one of the rooms were to have a seizure before a physical check had been carried out in all the rooms, the relevant red light could not in the meantime be activated as a visual prompt of the noise caused by the seizure. If the resident were in the last room to be inspected, it could be some 30 minutes before he or she could receive assistance and in an extreme case this could be fatal. Most people having a seizure make a noise at the start of the seizure.
34. Some residents at St Elizabeth's have very quiet seizures and their alarm systems for triggering the red lights have therefore been set at a low level, so that aircraft are more likely in their cases to trigger the red lights.
35. So far no resident at St Elizabeth's has died or suffered unnecessarily as a result of an aircraft causing an outage on the monitoring system. BAA has provided finance and advice to St Elizabeth's in connection with the monitoring system, but this, as Mr McMullen has explained in his evidence, has not removed the risk of outages. If BAA's appeal is successful, then there will be more aircraft using Buzzard and therefore an increased risk of outages in the monitoring system. Is this a risk worth taking? I think not. Compared with St Elizabeth's, which has been in operation since 1903, Stansted Airport is relatively recent and must be operated so as to avoid as far as possible risking the health of the residents at St Elizabeth's.
36. I have compared the noise contour maps for 2005 with those for 2006 (CD 410.1 and 410.2). It is difficult to make the comparison because my copies of the maps for 2005 have been scaled down. I have also seen no commentary from the ERCD at the CAA on the 2006 contours and the contours I have for 2006 do not show the comparable position of the 2005 contours. That said:-
(a) The 57 dBA contour for the standard 2006 contours extends further north than in 2005 and perhaps, though this is less clear, slightly further south, resulting in an increased area within the standard 57 dBA contour.
(b) The 57 dBA contour for the actual 2006 contours also extends further north than in 2005 and perhaps, though again this is less clear, slightly further south, again resulting in an increased area within the 57 dBA actual contour.
              The 2006 contour maps seem to demonstrate, based purely on 57 dBA contours, a deteriorating 
              noise pattern around Stansted compared with 2005. In fact the 2006 maps show the 57 dBA
              contours in more or less the same position as in 2004, and therefore the improvement in the 57
              dBA contours in 2005 compared with 2004 has been reversed.
37. A word about night flights. Mr Charles has referred to the movement limits on night flights in para 7.3.12 of his Proof and has emphasised that the same movement limits have been in place at Stansted since October 1999. This is true, but it masks the fact that the actual movements at night (23.30 to 06.00 hours) at Stansted reach nowhere near the limits of 5000 in the winter months and 7000 during the summer months. The schedule on page 60 to Stage 1 of the Consultation on Night Flights at Stansted shows that from winter 1999/00 to summer 2003 the percentage of the maximum of the permitted night movements varied from a low of 32.5% to a high of 75.7%, an average in winter in this period of 45.6% and an average in summer of 70.8%. There is therefore substantial headroom for many more night flights.
38. The timetable each day at Stansted is not the same, but on many days there are already scheduled take-offs before 06.00 hours and at least two scheduled arrivals after 23.30 hours. If BAA's appeal is successful, then with so much latitude it is likely that there will be more departures before 06.00 and more arrivals after 23.30 hours, with a view to enabling the no frills airlines to meet their aim of four return sectors each day. In the light of this, it is not reasonable for Mr Charles to conclude that the table in para 7.3.12 of his Proof "confirms that there will be no increase in aircraft activity during the night quota period".
39. Aircraft noise at night-time is of course at its most intrusive, and the likelihood that if the appeal succeeds, there will be more night flights is particularly unwelcome to the residents of Much Hadham and no doubt to other residents near the flight paths for aircraft leaving and arriving at Stansted.
40. BAA has not proposed any further measures as far as I know to mitigate the effects of aircraft noise outside the 57 dBA contours. Reducing the area covered by the 57 dBA contours from the present 43.6 sq kilos will not of course have any effect on aircraft noise outside the contours.
41. BAA has argued that increased flights from Stansted will not result in a perceptible increase in aircraft noise outside the 57 dBA contours. I profoundly disagree.
42. At present there are fixed noise monitors located 6.5 kilometres from the start of roll positions in accordance with ICAO noise certification procedures. I consider that only testing noise levels at these locations is not sufficient.
43. If BAA's appeal is successful, they should be asked to put their money where their mouth is. This could be done by installing mobile units at the locations mentioned in CD 399 where the units have been installed since 2000 so as to test whether or not average LAmax levels in the busiest three months of the year (June, July and August) have or have not increased as a result of increased flights form Stansted. If they have increased, BAA could then be fined with the fines being paid to the Charitable Trust established on 7 March 2005. It would thereafter be up to BAA to decide whether or not to collect all or part of the fines from the airlines.

Air Transport Movements ("ATMs")

44. The aim of restrictions on annual aircraft movements is of course to provide some limit on the amount of aircraft noise that residents under flight paths have to tolerate. The limit should be set as low as possible.
45. BAA's forecast in CIP 2007 is that ATMs will only exceed the current annual limit of 241,000 in 2013/14. Even if the mppa cap is increased following this Inquiry, there is no reason for the cap on ATMs to be increased at this stage. If BAA's forecast of the growth in passenger numbers in CIP 2007 proves to be correct, the current cap on ATMs provides sufficient headroom not to be a constraint until after the completion of the Inquiry into G2. Furthermore, the Government's announcement in the Pre-Budget Report that air passenger duty is to be abolished and replaced from 2009 with a tax on flights is likely to lead to the airlines being more determined to fill aircraft to capacity, and if each flight is full or nearly full, then you would expect this to reduce the number of aircraft movements.
46. ATMs do not include several types of flights including flights by helicopters, repositioning flights, flights where the aircraft is not carrying passengers or cargo for hire or reward and flights with passenger seating capacity of less than 10. Many of these flights are as noisy as flights which are ATMs, and they are not subject to any limit. They should be subject to a limit. This could be achieved by imposing a new limit of say 242,000 flights per annum on all aircraft which land or take-off from Stansted.
47. The shoulder periods, that is from 06.00 to 06.59 hours and from 23.00 to 23.30 hours, are periods when Stansted is busy. They are also periods when many people are asleep or trying to get to sleep. The present night restrictions regime contains no restrictions on flights during the shoulder periods. If BAA's appeal is successful, then restrictions should be imposed so as to ensure that there is no increase in the annual number of flights during the shoulder periods.

R2
    
48. BAA have decided to make separate planning applications in respect of G1 and G2. I entirely agree with the airlines and others who criticise BAA for following a policy of piecemeal and incremental growth at Stansted. Many of the issues, which have been raised at this Inquiry, will have to be revisited at the Inquiry relating to G2. This will result in unnecessary duplication. The Government published the Aviation White Paper as long ago as December 2003, and BAA has had plenty of time to gather together the information to enable the applications in respect of both G1 and G2 to be made at the same time.
49. I appreciate, Sir, that your task is to make recommendations to the Secretaries of State solely based on the evidence that you have seen and heard relating to G1, but I consider that you should bear I mind that a further Inquiry will shortly be taking place at which many of the issues on which you have heard and seen evidence will be reconsidered, and that if BAA is not successful on this appeal or only partly successful, then BAA will, as it were, have a second chance at the further Inquiry. In my view this consideration should lead, at the best from BAA's perspective, to BAA only being granted the minimum of what they are seeking. Hence my suggestion that even if BAA's appeal is successful, ATMs should continue to be limited to the current maximum of 241,000 ATMs a year and that passengers numbers should be limited to 27 mppa excluding transfer passengers.

Conclusions     

50. My Parish Council considers that this appeal should be rejected and therefore urges you, Sir, to advise the Secretaries of State accordingly. Like most local people whose lives are already blighted by Stansted, we do not want to see our quality of life continue to deteriorate with increased road traffic, resulting in worsening road surfaces, more carbon emissions and more traffic noise, more crowded trains, more urbanisation and more aircraft noise disturbing the peace and calm of a beautiful part of the countryside. The wrong decision was made to construct London's third airport in the countryside with poor public transport facilities, and this wrong decision should not be compounded by allowing that Airport to increase its capacity.
51. I have deliberately said nothing so far about the damage to the environment caused by aircraft emissions. You have heard how global warming is damaging the lifestyle of the Inuit, and on the news on 12 October there was a report about how scientists have discovered that the Artic is warming faster than they had previously believed. The Government considers that climate change is one of the greatest threats to humanity, and aircraft emissions are amongst the fastest growing cause of climate change. Airport expansion should therefore be halted in the interests of our children and grandchildren and future generations.
52. One last point. You will remember from my opening speech that I said that I was waiting for a ruling from the Information Commissioner as to whether I was entitled under the Freedom of Information Act to see some as yet undisclosed DfT documents relating to Stansted. I am afraid that I am still waiting for the ruling and so do not know whether the documents, if disclosed, would have any relevance for this Inquiry.

                                                                                                                             M L G Dillon

                                                                                                                          15 October 2007