Sammy Wilson
MP for East Antrim · Democratic Unionist Party · United Kingdom
“I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Foreign Secretary has said that his concern is for the behaviour of some settlers on the west bank, and I think we all share that, but does he accept that the fear of losing votes to the Green party and the independent Members on the Bench behind me is also…”
“It is a sad state of affairs when ordinary people feel compelled to take direct action against illegal immigration into our country as a result of successive Governments failing to stop the invasion of our country by illegal immigrants, aided by criminal gangs.”
“The Chancellor has rightly identified trade frictions as a major impediment to economic growth. As a result of the Windsor framework, the internal market in the UK has been severely disrupted by EU-imposed restrictions on trade, which mean customs unions, mountains of paperwork and physical barriers. What steps does the right hon.”
“We would not need these regulations were it not for EU regulations having to apply to a certain part of the United Kingdom because it is regarded as part of the EU, regardless of the democratic vote of the British people to leave the EU. This is not about protecting biodiversity.”
“Because they are now subject to all these additional regulations. If they do not abide by those regulations—we have already seen this—those goods can be seized, destroyed, re-exported or detained by DAERA in Northern Ireland. That is not something which is just a maybe; it happens currently.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. The Minister outlined why these regulations were necessary and gave what, to most on the Committee, would be an acceptable argument: they are to protect biodiversity in Northern Ireland and to ensure that diseased plants are not accessing the Northern Ireland market.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,500 lines we hold for Sammy Wilson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 76 of 90.
“The Secretary of State has admitted that the security forces do not even know the primary people involved in dissident organisations, let alone what attacks they are planning. Does he accept that that is partly due to the fact that the special branch of the RUC, now the PSNI, was disbanded, so those intelligence sources have been lost and we are now in the dark about what dissidents are likely to do and what attacks they are likely to plan?”
“I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s proposal about people volunteering to go on such schemes. Does he accept that those who are willing to volunteer to go on such schemes already have a plethora of schemes that they can go on? What the Government seek to achieve is to reach the core of people who are not prepared, for one reason or another, to join schemes. Such people therefore must be targeted in order to ensure that the opportunities for work and for preparation for such opportunities are taken up, so that they can have the dignity of eventually finding themselves in full-time employment, rather than being dependent on the state.”
“I take the hon. Gentleman’s point that we are already dealing with people who are on the margins. However, they are often on the margins because they have become dependent on inadequate state benefits. Surely the way to remove them from the margins is to get them into useful employment and to get them on the employment ladder. If they are not prepared to volunteer to take the first step on to that ladder, is it not the duty of the House to ensure that we put something in place that will enable them to take that first step?”
“It was only when I saw it close up that I realised how foolish the mobility rules were. Of course he was perfectly capable of walking around; he was still fit enough to do that. However, his lack of confidence, his loss of independence and his need for support meant that he was as tied as someone who could no longer walk. The House has been done a great service by those who have highlighted the needs of these people—especially those who have been used to having their eyesight and who have suddenly lost it—and the impact that this can have on them.”
“I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, North-West (John Robertson) on tabling the new clause, and I should like to indicate my full support, and that of my party, for the campaign he has waged. Everyone in the House has been very successfully lobbied by the RNIB, and I know that it has been equally active in Northern Ireland. The present situation has been described as an anomaly by a number of hon. Members, but I think that it goes beyond an anomaly. There is great unfairness in the current provisions, which results in great injustice. I think we have all listened to what members of the RNIB have said, and to our constituents. I have experienced at first hand the impact that the loss of sight can have on a family member, when my father lost his sight as a result of diabetes.”
“In fact, they are more than halfway there. Ministers have accepted the idea and have no objection in principle; they are sympathetic to the call for change; they are committed to making this an urgent priority; and they wish to continue to work with the RNIB. Ministers have almost got there, so I suppose the call from this House tonight is: undo the injustice, take the last step and accept the new clause.”
“So the fact that the measure will not open the floodgates, and that it will not set a wider precedent, is a second reason the Government could, and should, accept the new clause. The third reason is the cost involved. There has been wrangling over the cost, and that has been unfortunate. Given the budget for welfare provision, it should be possible to find the necessary £44 million or £45 million, even by prioritising how we spend money. And, as other Members have pointed out, there will be benefits involved. For many young people who have lost their sight, and with it their confidence and independence, the very fact that they can get financial support that could enable them to go out and do a job will have a positive impact on the public finances. The last reason is that the Government are halfway there already.”
“The very fact that this measure has gained such widespread support across the House shows that we are aware that this is the feeling not only of those constituents who have lost their sight, or never had it, but of the many constituents who help us to recognise the unfairness and injustice that exists. That is the first reason we need this change: it will right an injustice in the existing system. The second reason is that, despite all the arguments that such a measure would open the floodgates and set a precedent, it applies only to a fairly tightly defined group. Some Members feel that the definition accepted by the RNIB is too tight. We have a fairly good idea of the numbers involved, and it is unlikely that other people with the same impairment would be able to hook on to any change by the Government on this issue.”
“For all those reasons, I welcome the commitment that has been given from the Front Bench today, though there still appears to be some unwillingness to consider the sectoral opt-out. The Retained Firefighters Union in Northern Ireland has asked for the opt-out to apply collectively to the fire service. I do not believe that a collective or a sectoral application is impossible. That does not seem to be a problem for other European countries, so why should it not be possible for the United Kingdom? Flexibility and the right of countries to determine their own working practices, to which individuals can sign up, are important. Rather than the super-state of Europe dictating to us, the issue should be determined by this Parliament and its Members, who are elected to reflect the needs of their constituents and their own country.”
“As has been pointed out, it is not an option to say, “Well, let’s have full-time firefighters in all those stations.” One thousand firefighters in Northern Ireland are retained firefighters and would be affected by the measure. In my constituency the life boat would be affected, as would the coastguards. Ironically, although the directive is supposed to be applied for health and safety reasons, health and safety would be impaired by it. It is therefore important that the Government push on their commitment that the opt-out will be retained. At a time of recession, when Northern Ireland is particularly dependent on small businesses, flexible hours will enable many businesses to remain viable and will probably enable many workers to stay in employment.”
“I welcome the assurance given by Government Front Benchers that despite what happened with the MEPs from the Government’s own party, Ministers will at least fight to retain the opt-out. I will cut my remarks short, because there is another Member who wishes to speak, but let me just put something on record first. In Northern Ireland in particular, the working time directive would cause a great problem for many of the emergency services. Of the 68 fire stations in Northern Ireland, 46 rely totally on retained firefighters. If the working time directive applied to them, large parts of Northern Ireland would be left without a local fire station.”
“May I first say that what has happened in the European Parliament, and the way in which MEPs from the Government party voted in the European Parliament, has caused great concern to those who will be affected by the European directive? My party believes that what happens on working time should be determined nationally, and not Europe wide. That point was illustrated very well by the contribution from the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), who pointed out that there are particular circumstances affecting the United Kingdom, namely those pertaining to retained firefighters. That situation is unique in Europe, so a European directive is not suitable. There are many other examples of cases in which we need national flexibility.”
“Locals in south Armagh boast that it is one of the biggest oil-producing areas of the world—not because of its geological features but because republicans smuggle and launder fuel there. Millions of pounds are lost to Her Majesty’s Customs and Revenue, damage is done to the environment and violence is committed to support that criminal empire, but even so very few people have been arrested and very few assets seized. Will the Minister say when we shall see an all-out assault by the police, HMRC and the Serious Organised Crime Agency against those criminals?”
“We wish to see the devolution of policing and justice, and we wish to put that on the record, but we have always insisted that it must be done against the background of community support and confidence—”
“Eventually it is this House that will take ownership of it and have its imprint on it. Therefore, Members of this House, who have not had the opportunity to debate in the Northern Ireland Assembly but who will be held accountable for the Bill, should have the opportunity properly to debate the issues now. The Secretary of State said that all he wished to do was to give form to the Assembly’s wishes. but there was no sense from Northern Ireland politicians that the measure had to be dealt with post-haste or today, or that it had to be in place by a certain date at the end of March. Assembly Members are quite relaxed about it. As a number of hon. Members have already pointed out, the passing of this legislation will not bring about the devolution of policing and justice tomorrow anyway.”
“I have listened to the arguments from both Front-Bench spokesmen, but I am unconvinced by the Secretary of State’s argument that there is an urgency here, or by the urgings of the shadow spokesman that we should have less debate on the programme motion and more on the amendments. I remind him that as we are not members of his new force, we do not feel under any obligation to take orders or commands from him. As the Secretary of State has made clear, much of the Bill has been discussed with Assembly Members and parties, and we are largely in agreement with its main thrust. But just because the Assembly has agreed it, and just because Members in another Administration in part of the United Kingdom have agreed it, that does not mean that this House should not have the opportunity to scrutinise it.”
“Elephants would certainly not reflect their electoral support. The only conclusion that one can come to is that if the Secretary of State sees this as urgent, that urgency must have been pressed on him by one party alone, and that is Sinn Fein. If we are to have legislation pushed through the House in an abnormal way, and it is seen to be in response to demands from Sinn Fein, the very confidence and trust that are required to move forward the devolution of policing and justice will be eroded.”
“Indeed. That is the only way that the devolution of policing and justice will work in Northern Ireland. If there is an attempt to force it, all the problems that hon. Members have described, such as the danger of collapse, are likely to occur. We wish to work towards a situation where there is trust. Of course we want these powers devolved, but only in that context. As the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said, there is great danger in pushing legislation through the House, particularly since the Unionist parties are not asking for it, the SDLP is not asking for it, and even the elephant party is not asking for it, although the description of the Alliance party as an elephant party is stretching the imagination a little. It may be the party of mice, but it is certainly not the party of elephants.”
“Like the on-the-runs legislation. The Secretary of State’s argument about the demands from the Assembly cannot be used to back up the urgency with which this measure is being pushed through. The Secretary of State said that we want to have this measure in place so that we can have the devolution of policing and justice when the Assembly is ready. The Assembly is clearly not ready. Leaving aside the whole issue of trust, the Assembly and Executive Review Committee is still considering aspects of policing, not least the police budget and whether we want the devolution of policing and justice when there is a £170 million hole in that budget.”
“It is not as if we are being squeezed out because the House has to deal with other issues of such national importance that Northern Ireland has to be dealt with differently. Yesterday the House finished early, and I do not know how many times this Session we have not used up the full allocation of time. It is even more insulting for people in Northern Ireland to find that, when there is time, it cannot be allocated for important legislation that will put in place structures for the administration of policing and justice when it is time for those to be devolved to Northern Ireland. I hope that the Secretary of State will rethink the position for that reason, because the arguments have been weak and spurious, and because he owes the people of Northern Ireland the same treatment as that received by those in other parts of the United Kingdom.”
“As a Unionist, I wish Northern Ireland to be treated in the same as any other part of the United Kingdom. That means that Northern Ireland legislation—technical or not, politically important or not, ordinary and mundane or not—should be treated in the same way as legislation for the rest of the United Kingdom. We deserve that. In the past, there were excuses. There was what was described as “temporary direct rule” and we used Orders in Council. Those days are past; the Northern Ireland Assembly is dealing with most of the legislation that we were told had to go through in that form. The House has no massive time commitments on Northern Ireland legislation. Indeed, what makes it more galling is that there is plenty of time.”
“We are also content that other legislation put in place in this House addresses the fears of people in Northern Ireland and ensures that a Member previously associated with a terrorist organisation, even with acts of terror, could not be the Minister for policing and justice. We are content with all that, but I accept that some Members have difficulty with this legislation, wish to move amendments or, in the case of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), want to use the mechanism available to probe the legislation and ensure that there are no mistakes or weaknesses in it and that any changes to improve it can be made. All that requires that there be proper debate and a proper system to deal with the issues. I make one last point, which was also made by the hon. Member for Vauxhall.”
“Gentleman’s argument to its logical conclusion, we reach the point mentioned by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey): it all becomes tantamount to blackmail—“If you do not do this, somehow or other the commitment that Sinn Fein has given to policing will evaporate. It will no longer be prepared to sign up to policing. This is necessary for progress.” I am not accusing this Secretary of State of employing that argument; nevertheless, it was employed by those who support the pushing through of this legislation as the Secretary of State is seeking to push it through. By and large, we are content with the thrust of this legislation.”
“That is the point. If the Secretary of State’s argument is that we want the legislation in place for when the Assembly is ready to accept the devolution of policing and justice, there is no indication of that being a cause for urgency from Northern Ireland. My next point was raised by the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), the former Secretary of State, who is not in his place now. He went even further in making the case for why what I have mentioned was essential. He talked about the commitments given at St. Andrews, the fact that Sinn Fein had come on board on policing and supported the police only because of certain commitments on the devolution of policing and justice, and the fact that in the past that kind of method had been used because it was an absolute necessity for progress. If we take the right hon.”
“Before the hon. Gentleman does so, may I ask about the picture he has painted of what he considers to be the likely stand-off over the Minister for policing and justice? Does he not accept that if that kind of atmosphere prevails in policing and justice, it is also likely to prevail in the appointment of a First and Deputy First Minister, because there is the same potential for that? Therefore, if the structure, which he endorsed, for the appointment of the First and Deputy First Minister is robust enough, why does he not consider the arrangement for the appointment of a Minister for policing and justice to be similarly robust?”
“The hon. Gentleman describes a situation that it was never intended would occur, and nor does the legislation intend any vote of no confidence or removal of the Justice Minister to occur. The removal of the Justice Minister would not result from some popular mood in the Assembly. The removal would first require that 30 Members of the Assembly—of course, they could come from one party—would table a motion, but that motion would have to command cross-community support, so it would not be a case of one party or even a couple of parties simply taking umbrage against the Minister. Surely, a frivolous removal of the Minister would not be possible.”
“If someone has been appointed Justice Minister because they had the confidence of the Assembly on a cross-community basis—not because one person said that they would be a good person for the job—why would it not be effective to be able to remove them through that same mechanism?”
“Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) is looking at me; I do not know whether that is because I have lost his confidence. [ Interruption. ] I will not push that point too far. The mechanism for appointing the Justice Minister requires cross-community support and the support of the Assembly. If that is the method of appointment, surely we should use the same method when we no longer wish that Minister to be in place. I was appointed a Minister because I had the confidence of the nominating officer; equally, I can be removed if I do not have the confidence of that officer.”
“For those reasons, I do not believe that the amendments are necessary, or that in the worst-case scenario they would be the best way forward. The default position whereby powers would revert to Westminster would be more effective in concentrating minds. Amendments 3 and 4, which were tabled by the Liberal Democrats, deal with loss of confidence in a Minister. Under existing arrangements, there are no consequences to somebody putting down a motion of no confidence—people stick down a motion of no confidence just because they do not believe something that somebody else believes. If a motion of no confidence does not have to be tested, people stick them down rather frivolously; provided one keeps the support of the nominating officer, such frivolous behaviour can go on. I see that my hon.”
“Let us envisage the situation that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury suggests—that we cannot agree on someone to take over as Minister. Six months is a very long period to leave a Department without someone in charge, but if we shortened the period and said, “If, after two weeks, you haven’t got a Minister, you’ve got to have somebody in charge of the Department, so let it be the Secretary of State”, that would be an odd, and very dubious, constitutional position. A threat of powers reverting to Westminster, with Westminster looking after the Department for much longer, would concentrate minds much more effectively than the possibility of the Secretary of State taking over the powers, even if we accepted that dubious constitutional arrangement.”
“That would be determined by our knowing which party or person was likely to be acceptable. The amendment would require us to consider agreeing to devolve policing and justice and then hope that we might be able to sort out who the person was going to be. That scenario is never likely to happen. I turn to the hon. Gentleman’s second amendment. We can prepare for the first step in devolving policing and justice following an election in 2011 and see whether we can agree a suitable candidate, but an arrangement could be put in place before 2011 that might not be possible thereafter because of the outcome of the election. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) has made it clear that my party wants policing and justice to be devolved only if there is long-term stability and confidence that it will be able to continue.”
“I want to deal first with amendments 5, 6 and 8, tabled by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson). I have to say that they are rather strange. His first amendment refers to a situation in which no Justice Minister has been appointed. If that happened before 2011 under devolution, what would the fall-back position be? Would the Secretary of State take over the post? If, after an election in 2011, the post could not be filled, what would happen? Of course, we would be looking for a Minister only if there had been agreement and there was sufficient confidence that we could devolve policing and justice in Northern Ireland. That would require us to be assured that there was confidence in the community not only that the Assembly would exercise the powers but about the person likely to be appointed Minister.”
“I cannot see anything more limiting than that, and in those circumstances it is unlikely that there would be a host of motions for frivolous reasons, such as the Minister making a wrong decision about how money should be spent or about who should be appointed. There would have to be more serious grounds than that.”
“There is a limiting mechanism already, which is twofold. First, for a motion to be tabled in the first place, the Minister would not have to have annoyed one person, or a small group of people; the Minister would have had to have taken decisions or acted in such a way that he or she had annoyed at least 30 people. For that motion to be pursued, the Minister would have had to have lost the confidence of the 30 people who had signed the motion, and cross-community support from throughout the Assembly. That Minister would have had to have annoyed people from the Unionist side and the nationalist side of the Assembly.”
“It will be a sensitive post, and removal from it will require a large number of people in the Assembly to have not just been annoyed by the Minister but totally lost confidence in him. It is important that that mechanism is in place, given the sensitivity of the post. It will be a different post from others, and the Minister will be appointed in a different way and require a different level of support. Equally, he must therefore be held to account in a different way. For that reason, we will not wish to support the amendments.”
“The fact that policing and justice was not a devolved matter in the first place indicates that it was a much more sensitive issue than any of those that are currently being addressed by the Executive and by Ministers and Departments of the Northern Ireland Government. The appointment is to be made not by the nominating officer but by the Assembly in a cross-community vote. The requirement of the nominating officer’s consent therefore not only seems unnecessary but would give the impression that the Minister was in post only because he commanded the support of that one individual, rather than because he had the support of the Assembly. That is also the reason why I do not accept the need for the Liberals’ amendment on the removal of the Justice Minister.”
“I believe that the reason it has not been used is the very reason that I have given. I therefore believe that amendment 3 is unnecessary, because there are already mechanisms in place to prevent the situation that it envisages from occurring. I turn to the Social Democratic and Labour party’s amendment 21, which would require the nominating officer’s consent to a Member’s nomination as Justice Minister. I suppose that a lot of the matters that I have mentioned are interlinked. The whole point of the method of appointing the Justice Minister is that it is not to be a party decision or an appointment made on the basis of a preference expressed by one person, the party nominating officer. It is to be made by the Assembly because it has a particular reason to have confidence in the person chosen.”
“I am not a supporter of the Freedom of Information Act as currently constituted, although I do not think we should be surprised if there is a right of veto and if it is used. However, given that the then Prime Minister disclosed the thinking in the Cabinet when the decision was made, given that the legal advice was made public, and given that four inquiries were serviced with information, what is the logic behind not taking the final step of revealing the discussions in the Cabinet, if not to hide the Government’s embarrassment on this issue? Does the Secretary of State not accept that if the reasons he has given to the House today are to be consistent, the logical position would be simply to have no Cabinet papers revealed?”
“The third runway at Heathrow is an important issue for people in Northern Ireland because, as the Secretary of State has pointed out, no high-speed rail link will help domestic flights from Northern Ireland. However, there is real concern that slots from Belfast could be lost if a third runway is not built. Will he give an assurance that any planning agreement for a third runway would contain some guarantees about flights from regional airports into Heathrow?”
“Of course, there is real concern about the impact that any decision on Heathrow may have on regional airports, especially those in Northern Ireland, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that, without a hub airport in London, people who leave Northern Ireland and want to fly elsewhere are likely to have to fly to Europe? Those flights are longer, so carbon emissions would be greater. Total carbon emissions are then likely to have an impact on any decision made about regional airports. So it would be far better to have an effective hub airport in the south-east of England, rather than in Germany, France or elsewhere.”
“There is already concern that because of the pressures on slots at Heathrow, and now the link-up between BMI and Lufthansa, those slots could be lost to what are regarded by the bigger airlines as more profitable flights.”
“That pushes us to the conclusion that there is an economic case for the expansion of Heathrow from the point of view of the regions, such as Northern Ireland, where we are out on a limb and need good link to a central infrastructure that then radiates out to the rest of the world. It is important that those link are not only maintained but strengthened. I listened to what the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs. Villiers) said in putting the Opposition’s case. A high-speed rail link, whether or not it is feasible or ever happens, will not help Northern Ireland unless we are going to build a bridge or a tunnel as well. I would welcome those links, but I suspect that that is a dream for people in Northern Ireland. It is therefore essential that we have the ability to link into Heathrow.”
“There have been some powerful speeches in this debate, especially from Members whose constituencies are affected by this proposal. Although local issues are involved, however—in Northern Ireland I have seen in another role how airport expansion and changes to airports can generate heat and anxiety in local communities—what we are discussing is not a local issue; it is about an asset of national significance and extreme importance to outlying regions of the United Kingdom. At a time when we are going into recession and are concerned about jobs and the future of the economy, we should be aware that a project such as this can sustain many thousands of jobs and generate many additional thousands of jobs, and at the same time encourage the private sector to see that we are friendly to business in the United Kingdom.”
“It is. I hope that at the end of the debate the Government will be able to make commitments about the number of planes and kinds of planes that will use these runways. I am sure that it must be possible to give a commitment in the planning agreement that slots will be retained for flights from regional airports to the central hub.”
“Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) asked, do we want to introduce uncertainty to the communities around all those airports, in the vain hope that by linking them in some way we can deal with the demand for increased air traffic? This is an important matter, and Members have said that the House should have had a vote on it. I do not really mind whether there is a vote in Government or in Opposition time, but even if the House were to vote, how could the result be a material consideration in a planning application? I do not believe that it could, so I do not know how much impact a vote would have on the final decision. It might once again raise hopes unnecessarily and bring the House into disrepute.”
“This is at an airport that has two runways, when other hub airports with far less traffic, and therefore with the capacity to compete in future, are operating with three, four or five runways. If we look at the matter from that point of view, we see the need to increase capacity at Heathrow for the sake of the whole UK, particularly the regions. Another suggestion that has been made—I am amazed at the suggestions that are coming out of the woodwork—is that we should link all the other airports around London. I do not know how much work has been done on that, but I suspect that had it been a feasible option, it would have been considered some time ago. As the hon.”
“At a time when we already have economic constraints on Government spending, one must ask whether that alternative can be delivered. I suspect that it cannot. If we are relying on the private sector to deliver it, we are in even greater difficulties, as we have already seen in the case of other proposed high-speed rail links. I do not believe that there is a credible alternative. Even if there were, and we reduced the number of flights into Heathrow by 66,000, which I think was the figure that the Opposition spokesman gave, that would not solve the problem. Heathrow is currently operating at 98.5 per cent. of its capacity, and flights are already being stacked up because of the lack of capacity.”
“Given that there is currently a surplus of those certificates and that firms could sell them and move polluting activities elsewhere, the scheme would not reduce CO 2 emissions anyway. We have to question that as an alternative. The third reason why I oppose the motion is that although there is talk of alternatives, those alternatives have not been properly explained to us or argued for. One argument is that high-speed rail links could cut out a lot of the travel from regional airports to Heathrow. As I have pointed out, that idea is probably not a runner for places such as Scotland and Northern Ireland, and even the limited high-speed rail link proposal that has been put forward will cost about £15.6 billion—a quarter of what is currently spent on subsidising the rail network.”
“If one believes that CO 2 emissions have a dramatic impact on climate, one is bound by the argument to believe that that impact will be created. If we start going down that road, we tie ourselves in the same knots as the Opposition, and some Labour Members, have done today. There have been challenges from other speakers in that regard. If air travel is expanded, there will be an impact on CO 2 emissions and we have obligations on that which the Government have to live up to. Some Members, including the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), suggest that the circle could be squared through the European emissions trading scheme. I do not believe that.”
“I would love to give way, but I am restricted to eight minutes and therefore want to make my point. Many Members have expressed concern about the impact on climate change of a third runway at Heathrow. Some, at least, have been upfront in saying that there should be a reduction in air travel and that it should be made more expensive. I do not take that view. I suppose that I might be at odds with many Members anyway, because I do not attach the same importance to reducing CO 2 emissions as to doing so at the expense of sacrificing the economy, but I will not enter into that debate here. Nevertheless, there is an inconsistency in the argument. We have heard that if we are going to keep on increasing air traffic to other airports, there will be more CO 2 emissions as a result.”