Heathrow (Third Runway)

I declare an interest, in that I am a member of the Transport and General Workers Union, which is now part of Unite, which I understand supports the third runway at Heathrow. We have had a great debate today, as we often do on such controversial matters. In my brief remarks, I shall not address the issue of what I call the concrete footprint of a third runway—the destruction of the village of Sipson and other surrounding areas—as that is primarily, although not solely, a matter for the MP representing the people who live in that area. Instead, I shall focus my remarks on the environmental issues and what I regard as the mish-mash of the Conservative Opposition motion before us today. On the three primary environmental issues relating to local residents—air quality, surface traffic and noise—I take heart from the statement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport made to this House on 15 January. On noise, he said:"““the Government committed not to enlarge the area within which average noise exceeded 57 dB.””" He then went on to set out some safeguards, which he reiterated to the House today, in respect of the following understandable question that people ask: can these promises be relied upon, in the light of what has happened in the past in terms of Heathrow and airport expansion? He said:"““the air quality limit is already statutory, and we will also give the noise limits legal force””." I take great heart from that. The Secretary of State also said:"““We will give the CAA a new statutory environmental duty to ensure that it acts in the interests of the environment...and that it follows guidance from myself and my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and for Energy and Climate Change.””" He also referred to the important safeguards that"““the independent regulators would have a legal duty and the necessary powers to take the action—or require others to take it—needed to come back into compliance. In the case of noise, the matter would be for the CAA. In the case of air quality””," the matter would be for"““the Environment Agency””.—[Official Report, 15 January 2009; Vol. 486, c. 357-358.]" I take heart from that. On the procedures and processes that this matter involves, I take a different view from many in this Chamber, because I think that they have been putting on the Government the sorts of things that would be done by a planning inquiry. Surface transport, the overdevelopment arguments often put forward in our constituencies, and the air quality and noise arguments are very important issues, but they are also ones for the planning process. On surface traffic, the Government have not been given credit for the battle they fought in Brussels—in the European Union—to have tighter controls on emissions from passenger vehicles; this Government stood up for the 137 g per kilometre provision, which is a step forward. It will indirectly affect the air quality on the ground around Heathrow, whether or not it has a third runway, because the cars delivering people to and from Heathrow will be less polluting. Another issue that has been mentioned today is the economics, and there are two ways of looking at that factor. The first is the economics of what the runway will do for the economy and so on—and I understand the scepticism that I have heard about the figures. The other aspect is whether it will be economic to build a third runway at Heathrow. Some hon. Members seem to be trying to substitute the decision of this Chamber for a commercial decision made by the owners of Heathrow—currently Ferrovial, a Spanish company. I think that a third runway at Heathrow will never be built, because of the following things: high-speed rail; video links; the price of oil; the opprobrium associated with flying; and the question of whether hub airports make any sense, given that, as we all know, the big expansion in recent years has been undertaken by carriers such as Ryanair and easyJet—point-to-point carriers that do not go for the hub. I understand that from this Government and previous Governments there is no direct subsidy for Heathrow. Indirect subsidy is provided, particularly through the lack of excise duty and tax on aviation fuel. The Government ought to end that unilaterally, rather than wait until there is an agreement within the European Union. The emissions trading scheme will clamp down, and I think that, in view of the entire context, a third runway will not be built. What I object strongly to on the part of Conservative Members is, to use an old-fashioned biblical phrase, the whited sepulchre—although in this case it is a green sepulchre: fancy on the outside, but a pile of bones on the inside. That is what this motion is, because it tries to have it both ways. With all due respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), I suspect that he never believed in his wildest dreams that this motion would be debated on the Floor of the House. It is a contradictory motion that has been adopted today by the Conservative party, particularly in respect of the environmental stuff. It is like the old Canadian saying from the first world war, when people were trying to get Quebec to decide to stay in the confederation—they said that there would be conscription if necessary, but not necessarily conscription. That was a great political point made by their Prime Minister at the time, and although it was pretty nonsensical, it convinced the Canadian people. The approach here is that we will clamp down on air traffic if necessary, but we will not necessarily clamp down on air traffic. That contradictory, fake position faces both ways. The Conservative motion is also hypocritical. I suspect that many Members of this House fly moderately frequently for leisure purposes, let alone for business; they may fly to go on holiday in Iceland, to go yachting in Corfu or to go birdwatching in Paraguay. I regard it as hypocritical, and an insult to my constituents, that they are being told in terms, ““We want to restrict flights so you can't fly. We're rich, and we'll carry on flying.”” If they were really being intellectually honest about it, they would say, ““Let's ration flying. Let's not do it through a price mechanism so that poor people can't fly.”” The Liberal Democrats have just as much of a hypocritical position, and they should back off it. It is the kind of position that we face in our constituencies all the time from some people—I stress the word ““some””—who say, ““I don't want a mobile phone mast on my street.”” When such people are asked whether they have a mobile phone, they reply that they have, and when they are asked whether they use it, they again reply yes, but they do not want a mast on their street. That is the kind of hypocrisy that we face from people who are flying around the world on their holidays. The Conservative motion is contradictory, and I urge hon. Members to vote it down.