Category: BLOG

Today’s impressive rally against Heathrow expansion, organized by Zac Goldsmith MP, demonstrated the formidable forces that are massing once again to prevent expansion of the airport.  It will have given Heathrow Airport and their allies who want a third runway considerable pause for thought.  In the space of 40 minutes 15 leading politicians from right across the political spectrum lined up to speak.  They included the Mayor of London and two cabinet ministers, Justine Greening and Ed Davey.  And many more politicians wanted to speak but had to be turned away.

Airport expansion – like every major decision – will be a political one.  And the politics are moving away from Heathrow.  Politicians of all parties are putting Heathrow expansion in the “too difficult” box.  The Liberal Democrats are firmly opposed.  The Labour Party, under Ed Miliband and shadow transport secretary Maria Eagle, has made it clear it no longer supports expansion.  There is a powerful lobby within the Conservative Party which is urging the Party to rule out expansion for good.  The London Assembly and the Mayor are united in their opposition to it.

Look around the cabinet table:  the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, Business Secretary Vince Cable, Home Secretary Theresa May, the Secretaries of State for the Environment, International Development and Northern Ireland, Ed Davey, Justine Greening and Theresa Villiers and Defence Secretary Philip Hammond are all known opponents.

This is a far cry from the opposition being confined to local authorities, local residents and environmental groups.  Heathrow has become a London-wide, indeed a national issue, a national issue where politicians know there are votes and seats to be won and lost, where they are so aware of what happened to the last Labour Government’s attempt to expand Heathrow. 

Astute people within the aviation industry like Willie Walsh, in charge of British Airways, have made their view clear that the tide has turned against Heathrow expansion.  Today’s rally re-enforced that message. 

“There have been persistent whispers that the two big business organizations, the CBI and London First, are losing their enthusiasm for a third runway”

This may be heresy.  But it simply may not matter what the Davies Commission, set up last year by the Government to look at future airport capacity, says about a third runway at Heathrow.  The tide may already have turned against the controversial project.

I was a speaker at a major aviation conference last week organized by the prestigious Westminster Energy, Environment & Transport Forum:

http://www.westminsterforumprojects.co.uk/forums/index.php?fid=westminster_energy_environment_and_transport_forum.  When the chair asked who supported a third runway, only a very few of the 250 people present raised their hand.  This from an audience predominately drawn from the aviation industry and business.

Caste you mind back ten years, to 2003, the year the Labour Government published its Air Transport White Paper.  Business and industry overwhelmingly supported a third runway and fully expected it would be built.  Even three years ago, when the current Government dropped plans for a third runway two days after taking power, many in the business community saw this as a temporary aberration.  Normal service would soon be restored.

Now, however, a very different attitude is emerging.  Much of business and certainly most of the aviation industry still want airport expansion but they are moving away from support for a third runway.  Business people tend to be realists.  Many now believe that, in the real world, a third runway will not happen.

There are signs business now appreciates cannot be the quick, relatively cheap solution it is looking for.  It would not be ready before 2025.

Figures like the former Conservative transport minister, Steve Norris, have long recognized that a third runway is politically untenable.  British Airway’s boss Willie Walsh is planning his business on the assumption it will not happen.  All political parties are opposed to it.  As is the Mayor of London.  But, recently, there have been persistent whispers that the two big business organizations, the CBI (Confederation of British Industry) and London First, are losing their enthusiasm for a third runway.  Their public position is still to support it.  In private, doubts are emerging.

There are signs that business now appreciates a third runway cannot be the quick, relatively cheap solution it is looking for.  Even if a new government gave it permission after the 2015 General Election it would be over a decade after that before it would be up and running.  And that assumes the opposition wouldn’t kill it off a second time:

http://www.hacan.org.uk/resources/reports/how.the.heathrow.campaign.was.won.pdf.

The diverse ownership of the aviation industry now gives business choices it didn’t have a decade ago.  It has begun shopping around for the best deal.

Business is also aware that the aviation industry is very different from 2003.  Then BAA owned the three London Airports.  Today, both Stansted and Gatwick have new owners.  Gatwick is making a very public case for a second runway.  The Mayor of London is backing Stansted.  Business has now got choices it didn’t have a decade ago.  It has begun shopping around to look for the best deal.

Boris gets it. The London Assembly gets it. Former transport minister Steve Norris gets it. Some business people get it.  I think Heathrow Airport – BAA as was – gets it.  Maria Eagle, Labour’s shadow transport minister, gets it. Willie Walsh certainly gets it.  

However, I came away from giving evidence to the London Assembly’s first-rate transport committee this week pretty sure that some of the people backing a third or even fourth runway at Heathrow don’t get it.  It is simple:  it will be politics – not economics, noise or climate change – that will determine where, if anywhere, new runways will be built.  I don’t mean that the decision will necessarily be narrowly party political; simply that it will based on a political assessment of how deliverable any proposal for a new runway actually is.

“It will be politics – not economics, noise or climate change – that will determine where, if anywhere, new runways will be built”.

Steve Norris has consistently argued that a third runway at Heathrow is politically undeliverable.  British Airways chief Willie Walsh has come to the same conclusion.  He is now planning his business on the basis that a third runway will not be built.  He is buying up Heathrow slots from other airlines and consolidating his Madrid base through his link up with Iberian airlines.

I think they are right.  The last Labour Government tried and failed to expand Heathrow.  It lost out to a vibrant, rainbow coalition of local residents, local authorities, MPs and peers from across the political spectrum, trade unionists and business people as well as large sections of the environmental movement including direct action activists – http://www.hacan.org.uk/resources/reports/how.the.heathrow.campaign.was.won.pdf.  That coalition is merely dormant.  It would come back.  It would come back more confident than before.  It now knows how to defeat a runway. Moreover, it knows it has provided inspiration to campaigners across Europe – from Munich to Siena – to see off their runway proposals.  This is the political reality that would face any party that tried to expand Heathrow.  Politicians are realists.  Not one would want to risk losing another 10 year battle, achieved nothing in the process.

“The vibrant campaign which saw off expansion at Heathrow last time round is likely to frighten off politicians from backing a 3^rd runway.  That is the political reality.”  

And then there are the voters.  725,000 of them live under the Heathrow flight paths, according to EU statistics (see table below).  That, incredibly, is 28% of all people disturbed by aircraft noise right across Europe.  That’s more people than live in Glasgow or Manchester.  A third runway, according to Department of Transport figures, would add at least another 150,000.

It is difficult to assess to what extent those organisations – think-tanks, businesses, trade unions – which back a third or fourth runway have thought through the political barriers to Heathrow expansion.  I suspect they instinctively feel that the Coalition’s decision to scrap a third runway and mixed-mode (more planes on the existing runways) was a one-off, an aberration, something David Cameron repents of in private.  George Osborne, they claim, is on their side.  The tide, they feel, is turning in their favour.  It is only a matter of time, they believe, before Sipson is flattened and normal service has been resumed.

That, I think, is to misunderstand the history of protest.  I was involved in the campaigns against road building in London in the late 1980s and early 1990s; road building plans that would have flattened dozens of communities.  The scale of the protests killed off major new roads as a solution to London’s traffic problems.  Equally, the national ‘anti-roads’ protests in the 1990s changed the course of UK transport policy.

The anti-expansion campaign at Heathrow over the last decade or so is likely to be equally significant.  It will frighten off any political party from supporting further expansion of the airport.  Boris knows his former constituents in Henley would be up in arms.  Maria Eagle, backed by her leader Ed Miliband, has made an astute political decision to oppose expansion.  Heathrow Airport knows it has the fight of its life on its hands to get a new runway.  That is the political reality.  If George Osborne – or Ed Balls – doesn’t get it, they are in for a very noisy wake-up call.

It’s probably the most common question we get. ‘Why don’t you move, if the noise is bothering you so much?’  It is sometimes said aggressively; at other times just quizzically.  It can be followed by the comment: ‘After all, you knew the airport was there before you moved in.’

When I respond to these questions by email, I usually start by admitting that some people could move but choose to stay before adding that many, many others have moved because of the noise.  I regularly get emails: I’ve given up the battle; I’m escaping to Brighton; I can take it no more, we’re off.  People often ask me where in London is free of the planes.  It can be tricky giving advice when they don’t  tell you their price range!  I tried to send a woman to Uxbridge who really fancied Chiswick.  And nearly bankrupted another by suggesting Marylebone.  She settled for Barking.  

The oddest request was from a couple who had become so disturbed by the noise that they wanted reassurance that Banchory, near Balmoral in rural Aberdeenshire, was not under any flight paths.  And the saddest was the mother who had struggled for years with the noise in order to keep her children at schools they enjoyed only to move back to her home town of Southend, just a year before that airport put in an application for significant expansion.

That last example illustrates the second point I make in my email responses to those who suggest we all could move.  For most people it is just not that simple.  Many have no choice for reason of income, employment, disability, age or other personal circumstances.

There are so many cases like the woman from Southend where one member of the family is driven to distraction by the noise but tries to put up with it so as not disrupt the lives of the rest of the family.  Far from being simple, the option of moving may well be the hardest decision a family ever has to take.

There is also some truth in the other point made:  that people knew what they were in for when they moved in.  Most people who have moved into a property under a Heathrow flight path in recent years will know the score though many still say they had no conception of the way the aircraft would invade their lives until they actually had to live with it.

Although on the surface it appears pretty straightforward – you can hardly miss an airport or a flight path – dig just under that surface and a more complex picture emerges.

Some people, particularly those in rented accommodation, have little real choice about the area they move into, especially if they need to be within an affordable travelling distance of work.  We have a member who had been out of work for some years.  His only option when a job came up in Hounslow was to move his family to the area.

Then there are many people who admit that they knew full well they were moving under a flight path when they bought their property 30 or 40 years ago but, in all good faith, believed the promises made by government and the airport operator that terminal 4 and then terminal 5 would be the last major developments at the airport.  They did not move to an area that had a plane coming over every 90 seconds.

And finally, possibly more than a quarter of a million people unexpectedly found themselves under the Heathrow flight paths when in 1996 the suggested point for planes joining their final approach to the airport was extended by up to 3 miles.  There was no consultation and no compensation.  Indeed, for years many in the industry and government never admitted that any change had taken place.  

There was no way that these people, living 20 miles and more from the airport, could ever have expected to be living with a constant stream of sound.  Many fled but that was not an option for the majority of people in the densely-populated, low-income estates of Stockwell, Brixton and Peckham.  As one elderly West Indian woman said to me, “Darling, at my age, it’s either here or Jamaica.  And here is now home. It’s where all my family is.”  

“BA’s lack of interest in a third runway has important implications for the future of aviation policy in the UK.  It leaves Heathrow Airport without a critical ally”.

Heathrow Airport, formerly known as BAA, is looking ever more isolated in its support for a third runway at Heathrow.  On Friday (30^th November)  British Airways chief Willie Walsh told a major conference that he did not believe a third runway at Heathrow would ever be built and that his company was basing its future plans on that belief by buying slots from other airlines at Heathrow and expanding its operations in Madrid – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/aviation/9717087/Willie-Walsh-rules-out-third-runway-at-Heathrow.html 

Walsh told the conference organized by British Airways (BA) that it is “my personal belief that a third runway will never be built” and that “we are planning for life without it.”  He also said he was opposed to mixed-mode at Heathrow.

It became clear at the conference, which I attended, that British Airways no longer sees a third runway as in its commercial interest.  Walsh made it clear that, since a new runway would offer a significant number of slots to other airlines, BA would be less dominant than it is with the current two runway airport.  Therefore, rather than look for a third runway, he said it was in BA’s commercial interest to buy up slots from other airlines using Heathrow and develop at Madrid.   The newly-acquired Heathrow slots could in due course be used to serve the emerging markets of Asia and Africa and Madrid had good connections to South America.

BA’s lack of interest in a third runway has important implications for the future of aviation policy in the UK.  It leaves Heathrow Airport without a critical ally.  During the 3^rd runway campaign, Willie Walsh proved to be one of its most articulate supporters.

Heathrow Airport will now need to fight its corner without him at a time when it is facing more competition than ever before from other UK airports eyeing up the chance to expand.  The new owners of Gatwick are intending to submit a plan for a second runway.  Birmingham is lobbying for expansion.  Stansted expansion has its supporters.  And of course Boris is backing his island.

All the signs are there.  Support for a third runway is slowly draining away.

Boris gets it. Former transport minister Steve Norris gets it.  I think Heathrow Airport – BAA as was – gets it.  Maria Eagle, Labour’s shadow transport minister, gets it. Willie Walsh certainly gets it.  I am not sure, though, that a lot of those backing a third or even fourth runway at Heathrow seem to get it.  It is simple:  it will be politics – not economics, noise or climate change – that will determine where, if anywhere, new runways will be built.  I don’t mean that the decision will necessarily be narrowly party political; simply that it will based on a political assessment of how deliverable any proposal for a new runway actually is.

Steve Norris has consistently argued that a third runway at Heathrow is politically undeliverable.  British Airways chief Willie Walsh has come to the same conclusion.  He is now planning his business on the basis that a third runway will not be built.  He is buying up Heathrow slots from other airlines and consolidating his Madrid base through his link up with Iberian airlines.

I think they are right.  The last Labour Government tried and failed to expand Heathrow.  It lost out to a vibrant, rainbow coalition of local residents, local authorities, MPs and peers from across the political spectrum, trade unionists and business people as well as large sections of the environmental movement including direct action activists – http://www.hacan.org.uk/resources/reports/how.the.heathrow.campaign.was.won.pdf.  That coalition is merely dormant.  It would come back.  It would come back more confident than before.  It now knows how to defeat a runway. Moreover, it knows it provided inspiration to campaigners across Europe – from Munich to Siena – to see off runway proposals.  This is the reality that would face any political party that tried to expand Heathrow.  Politicians are realists.  Not one would want to risk losing another 10 year battle, having achieved nothing.

And then there’s the voters.  725,000 of them live under the Heathrow flight paths, according to EU statistics (see table below).  That, incredibly, is 28% of all people disturbed by aircraft noise right across Europe.  That’s more people than live in Glasgow or Manchester.  A third runway, according to Department of Transport figures, would add at least another 150,000.

It is difficult to assess how much those bodies – think-tanks, businesses, trade unions – which back a third or fourth runway have thought through the political barriers to Heathrow expansion.  I suspect they instinctively feel that the Coalition’s decision to scrap a third runway and mixed-mode (more planes on the existing runways) was a one-off, an aberration, something David Cameron repents of in private.  George Osborne, they claim, is on their side.  The tide, they feel, is turning in their favour.  It is only a matter of time before Sipson is flattened and normal service has been resumed.

That, I think, is to misunderstand the history of protest.  I was involved in the campaigns against road building in London in the late 1980s and early 1990s; road building plans that would have flattened dozens of communities.  The scale of the protests killed off major new roads as a solution to London’s traffic problems.  Equally, the national ‘anti-roads’ protests in the 1990s changed the course of UK transport policy.

The anti-expansion campaign at Heathrow over the last decade or so is likely to be equally significant.  It will frighten off any political party from supporting further expansion of the airport.  Boris knows his former constituents in Henley would be up in arms.  Maria Eagle, backed by her leader Ed Miliband, has made an astute political decision to oppose expansion.  Heathrow Airport knows it has the fight of its life on its hands to get a new runway.  That is the political reality.  If George Osborne – or Ed Balls – doesn’t get it, they are in for a very noisy wake-up call.

How Heathrow compares with other UK airports.

Justine Greening would have approved

Justine Greening would have nodded in approval when, last Friday, Sir Howard Davies explained the remit of the Airports Commission the Government has asked him to head up.  The former transport secretary, who was moved from her post in the September reshuffle because of her principled and implacable opposition to Heathrow expansion, would have warmed to Davies’s explanation that he wanted the findings of the Commission to be based on evidence-based submissions.  Earlier this year she memorably dismissed the aviation industry’s failure to back up their sound-bites with sound arguments as a ‘pub-style debate’:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/minister-in-shock-warning-on-more-heathrow-runways-7880609.html

Greening, though, would have been uncomfortable with the fact – as I am – that the expansion of Heathrow is one of the options Davies and his fellow commissioners are being asked to assess.  But I came away from Friday’s launch of the Commission a much happier person than when I arrived.  Davies made it clear that his Commission will be doing a serious piece of work; that they will not simply be recommending where expansion should take place.

I wrote in my blog on 3^rd September

To propose a new airport or runway without first analysing demand is like Tescos building a superstore without checking whether it’s required.  It runs counter to the basic laws of business. Yet that is the approach being urged on the Government.  In recent weeks the cheer-leaders for the different airports have been taking to the airwaves: Birmingham, Boris Island, Stansted, Gatwick, Heathrow, even Manston in the remoter regions of Kent.  Stories of shiny new airports and guessing games about which one will be chosen by the government are great copy for the press.  It is like an ‘X Factor of the Air’.  You almost expect Simon Cowell should be given the casting vote.  But it’s very bad economics.

It’s clear that will not happen.  The Commission will start by assessing future demand – in my view, an essential first step.  Davies also made it clear that any proposals they recommend will need to be consistent with the Government’s climate change targets, and that they will take full account of noise and other more local environmental considerations.

It is less clear how much work will be done on the extent demand could be managed through fiscal measures, such as ending the tax-free fuel the aviation industry enjoys, though consideration will be given to the potential of high-speed rail and video-conference to cut demand.

At the end of 2013 the Commission will be required to publish an interim report which Davies said will set out some short-term proposals but will also flag up “plausible” options that will be worked up in some detail for the final report due out in Summer 2015, two months after the General Election.

I suspect the final report will recommend expansion at some airports.  I know that any mention of expansion at Heathrow – be it a third runway or mixed-mode (more planes on the existing runways) – will generate huge opposition and will once again galvanise campaigners into action.  The same would happen at other airports.  But the Davies Commission will have done a job: it will have dragged the debate out of the pub. And that’s a much sounder basis on which to plan future policy. 

•   The full remit of the Commission, plus the list of commissioners, can be found at http://bit.ly/RywwEz

The Head of Justine Greening on a Platter

The aviation industry got what it wanted: the head of Justine Greening on a platter.  Immediate policy on Heathrow is unlikely to change – the new Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin has a record of opposing a third runway (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2009-01 28&number=26&mpn=Patrick_McLoughlin&mpc=West_Derbyshire&house=commons) and the Liberal Democrats remain firmly opposed – but the industry’s marketing onslaught has paid off.

That onslaught started the day Justine Greening was appointed.  On the day she was appointed in October 2011 BA chief Willie Walsh called her “compromised” because of her opposition to a 3^rd runway and because she had a constituency under the Heathrow flight path (As had her predecessor Philip Hammond, but that was never mentioned by the industry) – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/8829387/New-minister-compromised-over-Heathrow-expansion-says-Willie-Walsh.html.

From day one the criticism by the industry and its allies was relentless.  Last month (23/8/12) Richard Wellings, head of transport at the Institute of Economic Affairs think-tank told The Financial Times Justine Greening’s position was “untenable”: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c881f3a0-ed00-11e1-9980-00144feab49a.html#axzz25ZihFSMr.

But the industry’s campaign was more subtle than simply personal attacks on Greening.  They put it in the context that she was standing in the way of urgent decisions being required to expand our airport capacity or UK plc will lose out.  They know that is nonsense.  They know Department for Transport figures show that that Britain has enough airport capacity until almost 2030.  They know that London is voted the top city in Europe for business in survey after survey.  The influential Cushman & Wakefield found: “London is still ranked – by some distance from its closest competitors – as the leading city in which to do business.” (Cushman & Wakefield, The European Cities Monitor (2011)

https://www.cushwake.com/cwglobal/docviewer/2120_ECM_2011__FINAL_10Oct.pdf?id=c50500003p&repositoryKey=CoreRe).  And just this month a Bircham Bell Dyson came to the same conclusion, even putting a plane on the cover of their report to illustrate it! (http://www.bdb-law.co.uk/media/440379/settingupbusinessintheuk.pdf).

The industry know all this.  They also know that their oft-repeated assertion that Chinese firms are locating to other European cities because of an alleged lack of airport capacity in the UK is playing hard and fast with the facts.  They know that the number of flights between China and the UK is limited to 62 a week by bilateral treaty.  They know that the difficulty and cost of Chinese people getting visas to come to Britain is a major disincentive.  Ian Birrell wrote in the Guardian (14/5/12)>: “Getting a visa for the UK is “torture with a system judged the worst in Europe. Perhaps stupidest of all is how we treat the Chinese.”

The industry know all this as well.  But facts have not been their main concern.  Nor lofty thoughts about what is best for the UK economy.  Their aim has simply been to generate headlines to make the position of Justine Greening – and, ideally, also the aviation minister Theresa Villiers who was also firmly opposed to a third runway – untenable.  The industry has produced no hard economic evidence.  That was never their intention.  It was simply, as Greening put it in an interview with the Evening Standard ‘a pub-style’ debate. 

And it worked.  Greening was moved not because she was a poor Transport Secretary.  She had won plaudits across the board for her policy of developing a long-tern strategy.  She went in order to get aviation out of the headlines.

My guess is the frenetic campaign by the aviation industry and its allies will now cease.  They’ve got their prey.  They’ve always known no big decisions will be taken until after the next Election.  But they could not live with independent-minded ministers at the Department for Transport.  It was all very predicable.  As Chris Mullin, a former aviation minister who tried to stand up to the industry, said. “During my 18 months as a junior minister responsible for aviation policy, I learnt two things. First, that the demands of the aviation industry are insatiable. Second, that successive governments usually give way to them”. 

Why I’m backing Justine….and Maria

It may be a first.  I certainly can’t recall any previous occasion when voters have taken direct action in an attempt to influence a cabinet reshuffle.  Reshuffles are usually of less interest to most people than the football results of the Scottish third division. (I’m an exception to that incidentally having watching my parent’s home team Ross County move from the lowest tier of Scottish football to a proud fourth in the premier division). 

However, David Cameron’s reshuffle is different.  And all because of one woman:  the Transport Secretary Justine Greening.  West London residents have taken to posting ‘I’m backing Justine’ stickers all over the underground – see report in the Evening Standard:  http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/poster-battle-to-save-greening-from-reshuffle-8078787.html.  The fact that residents are going to this length – and are now calling for a demonstration in favour of the Transport Secretary – shows the strength of  support there is for her and for her stance on a third runway.

Justine Greening must be the first member of any Cabinet to be under threat because she is supporting Government policy.  But the aviation industry has been gunning for her from day one.  Her position was untenable, its representatives argued, because of her well-known opposition to Heathrow expansion and because her Putney constituency was under the flight path.  Just like the Egham constituency of her predecessor, Philip Hammond.  But the industry never raised that as a problem.

The current argument that the industry and its friends in business and the media use is that she must go because she is a block to a sane discussion about future aviation policy which must include the option of a 3^rd runway.  What actually bugs them is that the debate about a 3^rd runway has been had and they lost it.  What bugs them even more is that there are three ministers at the Department for Transport – Justine Greening, Theresa Villiers and the Liberal Democrat Norman Baker – who are independent-minded and not in the pocket of the aviation industry.

As Chair of HACAN, I know these ministers have changed the department.  The previous “collusion” with the aviation industry – ironically exposed by Justine Greening when she was in opposition http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/Test/politics/article82312.ece – has been replaced by a serious debate about future aviation policy which includes environmental organizations and residents’ groups as well as the aviation industry.  

And that brings us to Alastair Darling….and Labour’s Transport Secretary Maria Eagle.  When I read in today’s Independent on Sunday that Darling was still supporting a third runway – http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/darling-defies-miliband-over-third-heathrow-runway-8081429.html – I had to remind myself that he was once Secretary of State for Transport.  I just don’t recall anything he did.  He certainly didn’t attempt to shake the Department for Transport out of its bias towards the aviation industry.  Somehow it is difficult to imagine an ‘I’m backing Darling’ campaign.

With the backing of Ed Miliband, Labour’s current shadow transport secretary Maria Eagle has reversed Labour’s backing for a third runway.  I’m not too sure either of them would than me for saying this but I see real similarities between Justine Greening and Maria Eagle.  Both were educated in comprehensive schools in the North of England.  Both are more interested in developing serious, evidence-based polices than giving into the demands of interest-based groups.  Both value practical results above empty rhetoric.  That’s why I backing Justine….and Maria.

It’s beyond parody.  The call by the Free Enterprise Group of MPs for TWO new runways at Heathrow is bad news……for them.  To ignore the successful fight that stopped the third runway (http://www.hacan.org.uk/resources/reports.php?id=290) is politically naïve.  To spell out a range of destructive options for a fourth runway is bordering on political suicide.  It will simply result in a myriad of communities being up in arms.

It reminds me of the disastrous mistake the then Roads Minister Peter Bottomley made in the 1980s.  He publicised all the options for new roads across London.  It resulted in 250 local groups banding together under the umbrella of All London against the Road Building Menace (ALARM).  Just a few years later, in 1990, the Government was forced to abandon all the road schemes (http://www.roadblock.org.uk/alarmuk/roadblock.pdf).

Yet, people like Spelthorne MP Kwasi Kwarteng, a leading figure in the Group and author of the report on which the proposals are based, are not stupid.  So why are they doing this?  I suspect that most of them know their current proposals are folly.  If they don’t, they are not living in the real world.  Any attempt to build two new runways at Heathrow would result in the defining environmental battle of our time.  Even if the thousands of people who stood to lose their homes and businesses meekly accepted generous compensation packages, the amount of opposition the proposals would generate would be enormous:  hundreds of thousands of residents under the flight paths, climate activists, environmentalist from across Europe, anarchists of every hue…….the resulting campaign would make Occupy St Pauls look like a sedate church service on a quiet Sunday morning.  Surrey ladies would be standing shoulder to shoulder with the children of Swampy.      

It would be the campaign against the third runway writ large.  Ian Martin, writing in the Daily Telegraph (1/04/08), said of that campaign quote “There is an anger and a rebellion that runs from eco-warriors through to merchant bankers.”  No government could contemplate two new runways at Heathrow.

So what are the Free Enterprise MPs up to?  Their proposals are so off the wall it is difficult to be certain as to their motive.  They do seem to be trying to show that Heathrow, even with two new runways, is a cheaper option than an Estuary Airport.  Many of the MPs are close to business and are probably reflecting the views of the many businesses who don’t want to see Heathrow replace by an Estuary Airport. 

But they are probably also using their report to make a business case for airport expansion per se.  Their aim is to create a climate of opinion where it becomes generally accepted that expansion is required; the only question that remains to be answered is where?  They seem to challenging the Transport Secretary: “If not a Heathrow, where will expansion take place, Justine?”

Justine Greening, the most informed Transport Secretary on aviation for a generation, is sticking to her guns.  She first wants evidence-based responses on whether more capacity is needed and, if so, how much would be required long before looking at the question of where is should be.  These proposals from the Free Enterprise Group are a parody of the sort of evidence-based arguments Justine Greening is looking for.