Heathrow expansion will provide a runway to recovery for British business

Babz Normile works in London and is a Director of Conservatives for International Travel, a grassroots organisation campaigning for a change in party policy, away from opposition to aviation growth and towards support for mass travel. Here she responds to Tuesday’s article by Theresa Villiers regarding the support of some businesses for the party's opposition to Heathrow expansion.

It is rare for any large grouping of individuals or organisations to speak with one voice on a controversial matter. Therefore it should come as little surprise that some businesses oppose Heathrow expansion.  But it would be foolhardy for the Shadow Cabinet to take this small collective of contrary voices to mean that most businesses oppose expansion or that expansion would somehow not be good for UK businesses. This would be to flagrantly ignore the many businessmen and business organisations that have vociferously and robustly argued the economic merits of expansion.

Conservatives for International Travel question many of the other arguments made by Ms Villiers in her recent article on this matter, but certain things do need to be pointed out above others.

The Shadow Secretary of State for Transport states that extra capacity at Heathrow may not lead to extra routes, and that popular existing routes may just increase in capacity. But if increased numbers of people are able to travel to places they want to go to, surely that is a good thing, not something to be held as evidence against expansion? When did the Conservative Party become the bulwark against consumer demand?

It also seems that Ms Villiers has taken a nuclear approach to airport expansion once again, by implying that aviation is fundamentally bad for the environment and, consequently, that when in government the Party should oppose any and all expansions of aviation capacity. This point seems to be backed by her former colleague from Brussels, Charles Tannock. In the last nine months the party has stated its opposition to expansion at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. But the messages become mixed when we see that it has stayed remarkably quiet on expansion at Luton, Manston and London City. Finally, the party has given more mixed messages on a Thames Estuary airport than on any other policy area.  This is a disservice to the party’s credibility.

Conservatives should be backing airport expansion, not opposing it

Babz Normile works in London and is a director of the new grassroots campaign Conservatives for International Travel, which will be holding a one-day conference in the New Year on the theme: “What would Brunel do?”

Whatever your views on the effect of aviation on the environment, attempts to increase capacity at Heathrow and Stansted airports, or alternative proposals for a new island airport in the Thames Estuary (the Marinair ‘Boris Island’ proposal), there can be no denying that air travel is currently the source of heated debate within the Conservative Party.

Conservatives for International Travel (c-fit) was recently established to give a voice to those grassroots Conservatives who believe international travel should be made as accessible as possible. C-fit is concerned that the anti-travel agenda of a vocal and financially well-supported minority within the party is leading to the creation of policies that could deny ordinary individuals and families well-earned holidays, and small businesses their ability to market and sell their goods and services abroad.

The recent contributions on this website of David Wilshire and shadow Transport Secretary Theresa Villiers  – as well as the comments of MPs, PPCs and activists - have tended to focus on the issue of Heathrow expansion and the prospects for high speed rail. However, as with every policy discussion, let us not lose sight of the big picture.

Travel is good. Travel is right, travel works. Travel clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Travel, in all of its forms; travel for life, for money, for love, and for knowledge, has marked the upward surge of mankind.

International travel is fundamentally a good thing. It allows people to see, visit and do things of which our grandparents could only have dreamed. It allows individuals to gain a wider appreciation of the world around them and the histories and cultures of other places and people. It facilitates the exchange of ideas, goods and services. It permits individuals to gain new insights and it inspires us technologically, artistically, socially and economically. It provides new markets for our businesses, large and small. Just as importantly, it also allows a hard working individual or family to “get away from it all”.

International travel is a positive force and we should not lose sight of its importance to social progression. It is right that governments allow people to travel as much as possible. In a globalised and highly competitive international economy, governments should make it their aim to facilitate their citizens’ right to travel, not to place obstacles in their path.

So what policies should the Conservative Party be pursuing in order to advance that principle? C-fit lays out the following clear objectives:

1. To ensure that infrastructure plays as little role as possible in limiting access to travel;
2. To ensure that government taxes actively encourage travel, not discourage it;
3. To ensure that the views and concerns of those adversely affected by air traffic, such as residents in proximity to airports, are taken into account in government policy whilst at all times remaining mindful of the wider benefits international air travel gives to the national population; and
4. To ensure that governments internationally actively support the development of new aviation and aerospace technology, including innovations to reduce aircraft noise and the direct environmental impact of aviation.