Heathrow (Third Runway)

It is a pleasure to respond to a debate that has been serious, heartfelt and broadly positive across the whole House. That owes much to the motion that we are debating today, tabled originally by the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), whose balanced and responsible early-day motion provided the words used. As we might expect from the hon. Gentleman, the motion is constructive rather than partisan in both its tone and effects. He made a wonderful speech that we all enjoyed, and it is a shame that we could not hear more from him. The motion simply calls on the Government to rethink their plans for a third runway at Heathrow and to give full consideration to alternative solutions. The original early-day motion was signed by 167 Members, with support drawn almost equally from all the main parties. It is right to make a careful, cool-headed assessment, because it would be wrong to pretend that the decision does not entail difficult choices. The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change reminded me last week that some years ago I co-authored a pamphlet entitled ““Free to Travel””. I am glad that he did, because I have since reread it and I was delighted to discover that I agreed with it. Not all of us can say that all the time. In it, I said:"““The growth in travel has enriched all our lives…and provided opportunities previous generations could only dream about.””" I stand by that, and that same point was made by the right hon. Member for Bolton, West (Ruth Kelly). However, I also stressed the need to"““strike a sensible balance between the undoubted and powerful attractions of further growth in opportunities to travel by air…and the need to preserve the quality of the environment from the stratosphere to the…country village.””" It is the question of where to strike that balance that we have been debating today. It is clear that considering the plans that have been proposed and given the alternatives, a sensible balance would favour thinking again, as the motion suggests.