Heathrow (Third Runway)

I, too, pay tribute to right hon. and hon. Members who spoke in the debate, and I want to pick out two contributions in particular. One was by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who spoke with passion about his constituents, and the other was by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall); he began his contribution by saying that he was not going to make an eloquent speech, but he then did so. In a way, he summed up how difficult the decision is. My argument tonight is that we can reconcile the economic and social case for aviation expansion, including at Heathrow, and our duty to the environment. That is the nature of government—finding a way through difficult dilemmas, and not ducking them. That is an important lesson for Opposition Members. What is the way through the dilemma? The answer lies not in unlimited aviation, which would not be environmentally credible, but in limited aviation expansion—limited by conditions on carbon dioxide emissions, on air quality, and on noise. That is the proposition before the House. Let me turn to the carbon argument, which a number of right hon. and hon. Members brought up, including the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who has a long record on such issues, the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd), my hon. Friends the Members for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), for Eltham (Clive Efford), and for Reading, West (Martin Salter), my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), and my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson), for Selby (Mr. Grogan), for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), and for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones). On the carbon argument and the 80 per cent. target for 2050, the heart of the question is this: in trying to achieve an 80 per cent. target, do we think that the cuts should be across the board—that is, should there be a cut of 80 per cent. in every sector, including aviation? This is what the Committee on Climate Change said on the subject in its report in December:"““aviation is likely to grow as a percent of all emissions. This is not in itself undesirable: in a carbon-constrained world fossil fuels should be used in those applications where alternatives are least available””—" that is, in aviation. Is that the right position? That is the question for the House today. I believe that it is, because an 80 per cent. cut in aviation would mean going back to 1974 levels of flying. We must all accept the principle that aviation will not bear as big a burden as other sectors in the economy.