Heathrow expansion welcomed by the North and Scottish political leaders

The environmental impact of a third runway barely got a mention in the media whereas there was a great deal of coverage about the effect of Heathrow growth on the North of England and Scotland. Rik Thomas reports

In early June the news that a Parliamentary vote on the expansion of Heathrow Airport was imminent produced an entirely predictable rash of commentary pieces in the media. What was perhaps not so predictable, however, was the amount of analysis focusing on the effect of a third runway at Britain’s largest airport on the rest of the UK, i.e. areas of the country other than the South East of England where, of course, the runway will be located, should it ever be built.

Writing in The Guardian on 8 June, for example, Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham and Manchester City Council leader Richard Leese asked rhetorically if: “By giving the green light to major expansion at Heathrow, is the Government also implicitly putting London and the South East at the front of the queue again for the remaining transport infrastructure investment outside of HS2?

“Adding a third runway to Heathrow will mean, in time, a major increase in the volume of passengers coming through the airport,” Burnham and Leese explained. “The knock-on effect could be that substantial new transport infrastructure is required to cope, thereby locking in London’s claim over the future transport capital budget.

“There is an argument to say that the country has already spent far too much time on the narrow issue of where a runway should go in the South East, when it could more productively have been spent asking how we make the best use of existing spare capacity at UK airports such as Birmingham and Manchester,” they said. “If the Government can demonstrate convincingly that its plan for Heathrow will not disadvantage the North, we would not stand in its way… [but] if ministers fail to do this, we would recommend to northern MPs that they vote against Heathrow expansion.”

There was no such equivocation in a second Guardian article, by columnist Simon Jenkins, on the same day, however. “The building of a third runway at Heathrow must be the worst decision taken by a British government in modern times,” he began. “That a rich European city should expand rather than contract a major airport in a built-up area defies belief.

“The project will further congest and pollute what is already one of the most choking parts of the capital,” Jenkins said. “Its air quality is illegal. The runway will suck economic activity into London and away from the provinces.”

In spite of this last comment from Jenkins, on 15 June Clive Memmott, chief executive of the Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce, was remarkably relaxed about the possibility of Heathrow expansion in an opinion piece in The Manchester Evening News. “This is wonderful, long overdue news,” he began. “Heathrow and Manchester [airports] don’t compete. Hub airport or point-to-point – it doesn’t matter – the country urgently needs more airport capacity.”

Memmott did broadly concur with Burnham and Leese to the effect that: “The Government must now match its support for a third runway at Heathrow with specific and practical proposals to maximise the potential of key airports like Manchester… This includes support for ‘Crossrail North’, which will dramatically improve access to the North’s primary international gateway and help secure more direct long-haul services to key destinations.”

Far from relaxed, meanwhile, was former transport secretary Justine Greening. Writing in The Yorkshire Post, despite the fact that her constituency is Putney, in West London, Greening said, “There’s nothing national about the ‘national policy statement’ proposed by the DfT… As someone who grew up in the North, it’s unacceptable that, yet again, politicians in Whitehall think it’s okay for people living everywhere else in our country to waste time and money to travel to London so Heathrow Airport Ltd can have an expensive, in part taxpayer-funded expansion.

“It’s a double whammy already for northerners,” she added. “Pay more to get to Heathrow, then pay more to get on a plane at an expensive expanded Heathrow.

“But it’s worse than that,” Greening went on. “It’s a triple whammy for the Northern Powerhouse and Yorkshire region, because a bigger Heathrow means smaller regional airports… And there’s a fourth whammy. Heathrow Airport will consume £10bn-15bn of transport spend to help all those extra passengers travelling hundreds of miles to get to Heathrow, because their local regional airport doesn’t have as many flights any more. This at the very time most rail commuters would think the North a much higher priority investment if you’re a government with £10bn-15bn going spare to invest in transport.”

Scotland says yes

Heading even further north than Yorkshire, Scottish-based politicians were also keen to have their say on the proposed Heathrow expansion. Ian Murray, Labour MP for Edinburgh South (who held the distinction between 2015 and 2017 of being the only Labour MP in the House of Commons, although he is now one of seven), commented on the Labour List website that: “For Scotland, access to a hub airport as relatively close as Heathrow is a significant benefit… It means some of our most important exports have a route to other markets that is fast and reliable. Scotch whisky can quickly reach important markets in Asia and the USA, and Scottish salmon can be on supermarket shelves quickly in the rapidly growing Chinese market. The problem is that capacity to fly our wonderful products across the world is full.

“A third runway will deliver up to £17bn in economic growth for Scotland… and Heathrow can also be a success story for Scottish jobs,” Murray said. “Economic analysis suggests that up to 16,000 new jobs could be created by Heathrow expansion over time.”

In spite of the hyperbole above, Murray did briefly acknowledge the potential environmental impact of a third Heathrow runway – most media analysis simply ignored this aspect of the issue altogether. “If I thought that these [environmental concerns] had not been addressed, I would not be supporting this proposal,” he said. “The fact is that the environmental concerns – and other tests that were set by Labour in 2015 – have been met.”

Not to be outdone by Labour, on 21 June Conservative MSP Murdo Fraser used a column on the Politics Home website to also enthusiastically endorse Heathrow expansion. “In Scotland we have airport expansion to thank for the outbreak of consensus and a refreshing, pragmatic determination to do what is in our national interest,” he began. “Scotland will likely deliver overwhelming Commons votes in favour of Heathrow expansion because of the approach taken by our business groups, trade unions, the Scottish Government and leaders like Ruth Davidson. All have put personal politics to the side so this critical project can start in time for Brexit.

“Heathrow’s impact is felt across Scotland, as our gateway to the world,” Fraser said. “Almost three million passengers a year travel between Heathrow and our airports, but further growth is restricted due to capacity issues. Scottish businesses exported £28.8bn worth of goods in 2017 and many of these exporting businesses rely on Heathrow. They are now often constrained on exporting options because Heathrow is full.

“But it [expansion] needs to be done in a way that is fair to Heathrow’s neighbours,” he did acknowledge. “I have heard first hand of Heathrow’s ambitious plans to reduce noise with a 6.5 hour no fly window every evening, guaranteed respite periods for each community and a world-leading innovation program to bring forward new technology to get cleaner, quieter planes flying and no more airport traffic on the roads.”