Heathrow Expansion

Written by Vincent Cable MP and published in Richmond Informer on Fri 19th Dec 2003

The government's announcement in parliament about Heathrow will have enormous long-term implications for residents.

The decision to approve a new runway in principle, but subject to a stringent test of air pollution, is a compromise. As such it has annoyed both the main airlines, which want a new runway now, and many local residents who want no expansion.

The government was right to give priority to Stansted and to provincial airports. It is also right to insist that air pollution from the airport and the surrounding roads must not break legal limits. Otherwise health problems, like asthma, will get worse.

A balance has to be struck. There is undoubtedly expanding business and family travel. There is growing demand from those in provincial cities to connect to international flights or visit London; fast rail links are only a partial substitute.

The economic arguments for expanding Heathrow are genuine but often exaggerated. The airlines (unlike motorists) pay no fuel tax and pay ridiculously low charges for landing. If they paid the full cost of congestion and environmental damage, flying would be more expensive and demand lapse. Also the argument about 'more jobs' is spurious. There is currently a labour shortage. And, there is nowhere to house tens of thousands more workers.

Even if the government gets pollution levels down (and it isn't clear how) there remain serious aircraft noise problems. The government is under pressure to abandon runway alternation. There will then be no relief for people under the landing flight path in St. Margaret's or Barnes. This proposal must be fought.

There will now be a decade of uncertainty, protests and lobbying. The new, third, runway, may never be built. More likely it will be built but after a long delay.