Boy are BAA keen on a third runway for Heathrow. Their enthusiasm knows no bounds, and there appear to be no lengths they won't go to to get their own way - purely for the good of the country, of course (even though they are Spanish owned) - no shabby profit motives involved.
So far in order to see their dream come true they have:
- colluded with the government (through a joint body - the Heathrow Delivery Group) to steer their plans through the consultation process
- supplied their own data for calculations of noise and pollution that inform the proposal, and prevented opposition groups gaining access it it to carry out their own analyses
- written parts of the consultation themselves
- drawn up a 'risk' list with the Department of Transport to counter opponents of the proposal (including the 2M campaign, the group comprising local councils representing 2 million people who'll be affected by the new runway)
- taken out an injunction against Airportwatch, the umbrella organisation who's members include such radical groups as the National Trust, the RSPB, the Woodland Trust and the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England, as well as ourselves.
And these are just a sample of their tactics (you can read the full details here) - in fact their whole attitude from day one has been to use their corporate clout to spread secrecy and disrupt legitimate protest about the impact of their expansion plans.
So I had to stifle a chuckle this morning when I tuned in to Radio 4's Today programme to hear BAA's Chief Exec Colin Matthews guaranteeing to give an independent regulator the power to limit flights in and out of Heathrow for environmental reasons - provided that a third runway is approved.
Mr Matthews did his best to sound convincing as he promised that his company would "welcome being held to strict noise and pollution controls" - once the 3rd runway was in operation. "We have listened to the many arguments around expansion at Heathrow. Although the economic case remains compelling, we understand that we can only increase the number of flights if we can safeguard levels of noise and air quality."
"The history of Heathrow is littered with broken promises. Once extra capacity has been agreed, it is used to the full. No-one will believe claims by either BAA or the Government that flights will be cut in the future in the light of environmental concerns."
Edward Lister, Wandsworth Council & 2M Group
Hmm - would those be the same levels of noise and air quality that BAA have been happy to fiddle so consistently in their desperate quest to get the runway approved, by any chance? They surely would. So the question has to be asked, would they be making the same offer if they weren't absolutely certain that they can rely on any "government-appointed assessor" to happily accept whatever figures BAA decides to give them?
Well, those that have been following the story closely have their doubts. Liberal Democrat transport spokesman Norman Baker's reaction? "This is a worthless promise, as BAA has to stick to EU emissions limits anyway. It is clearly an attempt to get the new runway in place and then to come back demanding more flights at a later date. The last 15 years have been littered with promises of no more expansion, followed by demands for exactly that."
And shadow transport secretary Theresa Villiers agreed; "BAA are right to admit that they have lost the trust of Parliamentarians and local communities over the third runway. However today's letter is just the next in a long line of promises which may have been sincere at the time, that were subsequently cast aside by the company. We have seen this all before. What BAA needs to realise is that people do not want a third runway, we do not need a third runway, and under a Conservative government there will not be a third runway."
As Greenpeace director John Sauven pointed out, "If BAA builds a third runway at Heathrow there is simply no way the airport will avoid breaking pollution limits. That's a fact. Nitrogen dioxide levels at Heathrow are already bumping up against the limits. On top of this, a new runway would wipe out any chance we have of meeting our climate change targets. Two independent watchdogs - the Environment Agency and the Sustainable Development Commission - have already said no to a third runway for just these reasons."
The difficulty of BAA's position wasn't lost on Today's presenter Evan Davies who, after pointing out that in the past the airports operator had also promised never to build a fifth terminal at Heathrow or a 3rd runway only to go back on its word a few years later, suggested that one way of regaining public trust would be to post a £5 billion bond, payable to Greenpeace, if BAA were ever found to be in breach of environmental regulations once a third runway had been built.
Not surprisingly, though I must admit disappointingly for us (given the help it would be in the battle against climate change), Mr Matthews declined.
