Heathrow (Third Runway)

It is a great pleasure to follow the thoughtful speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Slaughter). This has become a truly cross-party occasion, with a series of Labour speakers sustaining—admittedly from different perspectives—the remains of an Opposition day. I reflect on the fact that, although I still hope that one day the Government Whips will recognise my modest political talents—[Laughter.] The Whips have been speaking to me rather more today than they usually do on Wednesday afternoons. Although I still live in that hope, I should be honest with myself and accept that this is probably the only occasion on which I shall be the author of a motion that will be voted on by the whole House of Commons. Before I give the reasons for which—after a great deal of reflection and consideration—I shall vote for my own motion, let me make one thing clear. Some Members have said that voting for my motion will mean voting in a Conservative Lobby. Well, long may it be remembered in this House that there are no Conservative Lobbies and no Labour Lobbies: there is an Aye Lobby and a No Lobby, and we must all make our own judgments on what it is best for us to do. It was clearly a very exciting Cabinet meeting that decided the policy on the third runway, but those of us who were not privileged to be there could only go by what we read in the newspapers. The Daily Telegraph told us that Lord Mandelson banged his head on the table in a"““bitter Cabinet feud over Heathrow runway””." I am a great admirer of Lord Mandelson's political talents, but there are some on these Benches who are not so appreciative: one of them even suggested that he did not bang hard enough. Perhaps Lord Mandelson was cruelly provoked by some of the other comments going around the Cabinet table. Another newspaper reported the Secretary of State for Transport as saying that climate change was"““a load of tree-hugging hoolah””." Apparently, my two very distinguished right hon. Friends with Yorkshire seats—the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families—also became quite excited. The headline in the Daily Mail was ““Balls wins as he goes Ed-to-Ed””. Apparently,"““Bruiser Balls blasted baby-faced Miliband””—" I consider both those descriptions to be desperately unfair—"““for saying there should be no increase in civil aviation and accused him of sabotaging Labour voters' foreign holidays.””" I have always thought that one of the many contributions made by the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families to Yorkshire politics is sophisticated political argument, and that was certainly in evidence during that Cabinet meeting. Let me very briefly—because I have only a few minutes left—rattle through a few arguments in favour of the motion. Its centrepiece is that we should think again, and take a step back. These are momentous issues involving the future of the planet and the future of transport in our country—both aviation and high-speed rail—which, presumably, is why the Government wanted a planning policy statement. That appears reasonable to me, and incidentally, it appeared reasonable to the Sustainable Development Commission, backed up by the Institute for Public Policy Research. According to the IPPR's report, much of the aviation data is disputed, and the Government should re-examine the policy. I make no apology for trying to secure consensus across the House. If we are to go forward as a nation, we will need consensus on aviation policy, climate change policy and high-speed rail policy. We cannot allow those policies to change every two or three years, and I think that achieving such a consensus is a noble ideal. I feel passionately about high-speed rail, and I do not think the Government have gone nearly far enough in that regard. High-speed rail is as important to the north of England, and to Scotland, as the Olympics and Crossrail are to London. I think that, in both England and Scotland, it could be an important substitute for air travel. According to evidence from Eurostar, KLM and Air France, for goodness' sake, are thinking of running a rail service from London to Paris, because they realise that it is a case of ““If you can't beat them, join them””. Before the TGV came along, only about 20 per cent. of traffic on the Paris-to-Marseille route was rail traffic; the rest was air traffic. Now nearly 70 per cent. is rail traffic. Perhaps as many as 100,000 of the 470,000 flights to Heathrow could be replaced by high-speed rail. As we have already heard, particularly from my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley), once high-speed rail makes it possible to travel from London to Birmingham in 40 minutes, from London to Doncaster in about an hour and from London to Leeds in an hour and 20 minutes, Doncaster and Birmingham become as close to London as some of the five London airports are to the centre of London. For the first time, it proves possible to have some long-haul flights. It changes the economics—an issue which my hon. Friend the Member for City of York addressed in some detail. Many Members have talked about the economic case. My hon. Friend mentioned The Economist. Its conclusion was that the Government's case on economic grounds was"““as vapid and noxious as a jet-engine's exhaust.””" It joins a host of newspapers—The Sun, The Guardian, The Sunday Times, The Observer and many others—who are all ranged against the Government's decision. Let us look at the Government's economic case, as they put it forward. They say the economic boost from the third runway will be about £3.3 billion over 70 years, whereas many calculations have suggested the boost from high-speed rail would be about £30 billion. Also, the Government's calculations are very suspect; if the price of carbon is changed to bring it more in line with the Stern report, or if oil is priced at $100 a barrel rather than $50 a barrel, that economic benefit completely disappears. As The Economist points out, there is also the Competition Commission report. BAA will be broken up, and some of the airports that will be independent might make suggestions. Since the early 1990s the number of transfer passengers at Heathrow has dramatically increased—it has gone up by almost 20 per cent.—while the number of direct routes served from Heathrow has fallen from about 230 to 180, so there is no direct link there. A promise is a promise in politics. On the local environment and air quality, about which many hon. Members have spoken passionately, we made a promise as a party and a Government that we would not go ahead with the third runway at Heathrow if we could not guarantee that European level air quality standards and noise quality standards could be met. Our own former Minister, Lord Smith, is making it clear from his role at the Environment Agency that that cannot be done. On those grounds alone—let alone the arguments about climate change—Labour Members should have real pause for thought. I appeal to all Members to remember that there is not a Conservative Lobby and a Labour Lobby, but an Aye Lobby and a No Lobby. There are many reasons to go into the Aye Lobby tonight—on environmental grounds, on economic grounds—that should appeal to Members in all parts of the House. I urge Labour Members to go into the Aye Lobby because this is about the heart and soul of our party as well; it is about keeping our promises—about keeping faith with the north of England, with Scotland and with the environmental movement.