Heathrow (Third Runway)

My hon. Friend says that they may have flown back to Scotland, but I believe that the Scottish National party is completely at odds with the Scottish business sector, and does not represent Scotland's best interest in this issue. When the Government announced the go-ahead for the third runway, Iain Ferguson, CBI Scotland's policy executive, said:"““There has been an increase in the number of direct flights from Scotland to foreign destinations in recent years…accessing London's key interlinking airports, particularly Heathrow, is an absolute must for Scots firms wishing to access global markets and customers at a time when winning business abroad has become even more important.””" In addition, Liz Cameron, chief executive of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, said:"““This is good news for the United Kingdom and good news for Scotland…A third runway would ensure a better opportunity to secure domestic air links to Scotland, and expand linkages with Aberdeen and Inverness in particular.””" The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar rightly spoke about his concern about securing flight slots between regional airports, such as the one at Aberdeen, and Heathrow. In his absence, I wish to point out that no one is seriously considering a high-speed rail link any further north than Glasgow and Edinburgh, and there certainly is not one planned to go to Aberdeen. If Heathrow does not expand and is instead left to wither on the vine, the idea that slots for regional destinations other than Glasgow and Edinburgh will be secure is pie in the sky, as it were. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State very eloquently said, high-speed rail will have an important part to play in the UK's transport infrastructure. He was also right to point out that it simply cannot entirely replace the demand for short-haul flights in and out of Heathrow. No one—not even the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs. Villiers)—believes that it can. In her opening remarks, the hon. Lady conceded that regional airports are vital economic engines. She also claimed that the high-speed rail network proposed by her party—which apparently goes to Leeds but does not go anywhere near Scotland—would remove all need for regional flights from Heathrow. That seems to me to be something of a contradiction: so much for the economic engine that regional airports comprise, if the Conservatives' high-speed rail network will replace the need for them! Of course, views both for and against the third runway have been expressed in the debate. I acknowledge that the 57 of my Labour colleagues who signed the early-day motion were entirely sincere in their motivations, although I say again that I hope that they do not follow that through by voting for the Conservative motion. However, there has been less discussion of the fact that a significant number of Conservative MPs—including people on the Opposition Front Bench—oppose their party's official position. There is astonishment among grass-roots Conservatives, and especially in this country's traditionally Conservative-supporting business community, that the shadow Secretary of State for Transport is beginning to sound more like a Green party spokesman—or, heaven help us, a Liberal Democrat. I want to go back briefly to the comments made by the hon. Member for Lewes. I intervened on him because he suggested that the Government should renege on their decision to approve the third runway because it was unpopular. That was a remarkable feat of wisdom and principle from the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesman—but in fact that thought process has been followed by the Conservative party. I genuinely believe that the reason why Conservative Members have arrived at their policy position, which they are trying to support with the motion tonight, is that they have licked their fingers, stuck them in the air and decided which way the political wind is blowing, and seen that they can make short-term political capital from opposing something that is widely approved of among their traditional core support. I find that the most cynical thing in a raft of cynical things that the Conservative party has done over the past three years. I now want to make three quick points. The night flights issue has been raised. Of course, I am lucky enough not to live beneath the flight path of any major airport, and I understand why colleagues are concerned on their constituents' behalf. However, it seems fairly obvious that the pressure to have more night flights is at least partly caused by the lack of capacity at an airport. Surely, perhaps a smidgeon of light that the Opposition can take from the proposal is that, with increased capacity at Heathrow, there will be less pressure to lift the cap on night flights. A word of criticism for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change—I am glad to see that he has taken his seat again—is that the proposal for a high-speed rail hub at Old Oak Common is peculiar. I hope that, at this early stage in the planning process, he will look again at that proposal and decide whether that is the best location for such a hub. The underlying presumptions in the debate are that flying per se is a bad thing, and that increased access to flying by those on lower incomes is something that can be lightly reversed. I find that completely out of touch and entirely patronising. Heathrow is a touchstone issue by which any party's commitment to jobs, economic growth and prosperity should be judged, and by that yardstick, all the Opposition parties have been found wanting.