Heathrow (Third Runway)

The hon. Gentleman is right, and I am not suggesting that the Government second-guess that decision. I am simply suggesting that the national, political decision that needs to be made by this Parliament—sadly, it does not look as though it will be made by Parliament, because the Government are not going to allow an official vote—does not have to be made today, and it did not have to be made two or three months ago. It could be made two, three or possibly four years down the road—that is the observation that I am making. Our understanding of the environment has also changed since the original White Paper was published in 2003—it was not right at the top of the agenda then, but we now understand more clearly the connection between CO2 and climate change. Surely we must address that issue and make a different decision in the light of those changes. When even the Environment Agency points out that it does not support this idea because it is not the right one, we must step back and consider it seriously. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands) made it clear that he questions the hub concept, which is an argument that I have heard for a long time. I have asked on five occasions—BAA, British Airways and two or three times in the House—for someone to show me the model of how hubs work, and the mathematical reasoning behind them. What makes a hub viable? Is it 100 destinations or 200? Nobody knows and no modelling is readily available, but that is the fundamental basis of the Government's argument. Where is the economic evidence that a third runway at Heathrow would lead to greater prosperity? An increase in air travel and transportation will lead to greater prosperity, but why must that be at Heathrow specifically? I should declare an interest in that I live under the flight path in Old Windsor and I met representatives of the royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead this morning. They raised many concerns, although I do not have time to go into all of them. Many things have changed locally, including those that affect people's quality of life. The ““Attitudes to Noise from Aviation Sources in England”” study showed that people are now more annoyed by noise than 10 years ago. Traffic congestion on the M4 and M25, even after the widening, is greater. Pollution levels from road traffic and the airport have been rising and it is unlikely that we will meet the targets for reduction. All those changes are further reasons for the Government to reconsider their decision. There are alternatives, some of which were not around at the time of the 2003 White Paper. We have talked about high-speed rail and I am glad the Government have now started to look at that—albeit a little late. That high-speed link was not necessarily possible 10 or 15 years ago, but it is now, and it is another reason to reconsider the decision. Other proposals include the estuary airport and the extension of Manston airport, and some people have even suggested that Gatwick might be able to take up some of the slack. If air travel is to grow enormously over the next 20 or 30 years, we will need much more capacity than we have now, so surely now is the time to consider some of these alternatives. With modern engineering techniques and technology, they have come closer to reality. I am acutely aware that we were elected to this House to represent our constituents and the national interest. The motion that we have tabled comes from an early-day motion signed by Members on both sides of the House, including 57 Labour Members. We chose it in an effort to be non-controversial on this issue and to give people an opportunity to have an initial vote on this issue, because the Government have ruled one out. I am fairly certain that everyone affected by the Heathrow proposals will check carefully how we all vote today, and that is right, because we are accountable to the people. I also suspect that the millions of people concerned about the environment and pollution—this issue will affect the regions and Northern Ireland—will also look closely at how we vote tonight. I urge the Secretary of State to take this opportunity to reconsider. Even if the Government just delayed the decision, that would be welcomed by everyone. The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change could apply a little more pressure and delay the decision until some of the alternatives have been considered. I ask the Prime Minister to see reason and change his mind on this issue. If the Government do not change their mind, the people will decide to change the Government. I am not bothered about that—I say bring it on—but politically, the Government would be wise to listen to the people of Britain, who are saying very clearly that they do not want this. The decision does not need to be made today. Because of the economic downturn it could be made in three or four years' time, as I am sure the Secretary of State is aware.