Heathrow

Some very odd comments from a government Minister last week. Conservative MP Justine Greening spoke about the extraordinary collusion between the DfT and BAA, and demanded a debate in the House of Commons about the third runway. Harriet Harman replied that "The accusations of collusion are utter nonsense" and that "all decisions on adding capacity at Heathrow will be taken independently by BAA".

While it's normal for the inner circle to ignore all the evidence laid before them (seriously, did she even read the Sunday Times article?), her second comment was decidedly strange. Was she suggesting that BAA will take the decision as to whether to expand Heathrow or not? If so, what was the consultation all about? Or did she mean to say all decisions will be taken "independently of BAA", or "independently by the Government"? Or was this just a shocking display of just how right we were when we called Parliament 'BAA HQ'?

If the Government thought the end of the consultation marked the end of hostilities, then they're in for a shock. Bolstered by growing militancy across West London and the UK, local councils are upping the ante. With talk of a judicial review of the consultation being banded about like cheap tickets at a Ryanair sale, Richmond, Wandsworth and Windsor and Maidenhead are taking on night flights.

The councils, backed by the Greater London Authority and a host of other West London boroughs, are seeking to challenge the government in the courts over the legality of the current night flight regime, which they say is noisier than allowed, and therefore illegal. It doesn't stop there though; according to Richmond council's leader, Serge Lourie, "This challenge is another important step along the road to our ultimate goal - a total ban on night flights."

Night flights are strictly limited - in theory - but in practice this leads to more and more airlines rushing to get in before the deadline, causing more noise in the process. With BAA under fire from all sides, and the DfT desperate to pretend it didn't collude with the Airports Authority over the consultation, pressure is growing on Ruth Kely to reign in the industry. Will she rise to the challenge? Doubtful, but perhaps the courts will do what Ministers are too afraid to do - just say no.

The House of Lords is a rarefied place, where quiet debate is the order of the day, and ne'er a voice gets raised. Until, that is, Lord Soley of Hammersmith weighed into a gentlemanly debate about Heathrow's expansion.

Lord Berkeley began the debate, with the reasonable question, "Following the end of the consultation period, what are their latest plans for the third runway at Heathrow?" and the Minister, Lord Bassam, was giving the usual waffle about "strict local environmental limits" and what-not. Into the fray charged Soley, who, having declared an interest as the head of pro-expansion group Future Heathrow, said angrily:

"Organisations such as the Sunday Times and the Independent that are campaigning for the closure of Heathrow... might also stop doing irresponsible things such as giving details of how to get on to the roof of the Houses of Parliament and how to join organisations that want to do so."

Amongst last week's astonishingly supportive media carnival, there could be heard a lonely voice denouncing our actions on the roof of the Commons. That voice belonged to Michelle Di Leo, of comedy aviation industry lobby group Flying Matters.

Flying Matters are the leading purveyors here in the UK of the kind of 'discourse' analysed by the boffins in my last blog; in some respects they are a bit like Plane Stupid's Evil Twins, regularly popping up in the papers and on telly saying outlandish things in support of their industry's expansion plans. Like the luminaries celebrated in the 2005 feature film Thank You For Smoking, Flying Matters' main purpose is to mislead policy-makers and the public about the harm caused by their client industry.