Dale Vince: I think that the extent to which it will give us growth is highly questionable. According to even some of the official analysis of what it might bring, it ranges from plus 3 billion to minus 2 billion or something like that – net to the economy. It’s going to take ten years to build, it’s going to cost a lot of money. It will increase air pollution, it will increase noise – and of course, carbon emissions. And I think there are just far better, faster, cleaner ways for us to get the growth that we should have.
Krishnan Guru-Murthy: Martin Sorrell, why is it a good idea?
Martin Sorrell: I think we need a plan around hardware, software, education, talent – and this is part of that plan. It will cause issues. But in the long term, I think it will add to the productivity of the country, the productivity of the people, and stimulate inward investment and confidence in the country, which we sorely need. You can’t have growth without sacrificing some things. I mean, we have to make a choice, a country that grows, or do we want a country that flatlines?
Krishnan Guru-Murthy: Dale?
Dale Vince: Look, business flights have flatlined. They peaked 20 years ago. So this is not about increasing those. Already three times as many tourists leave our country to spend their money abroad than come in from abroad. This won’t help that. There’ll be another quarter of a million flights across – above – our capital, exposing 300,000 people to overflying that aren’t exposed to it right now. And the economic gains such as they are will fall mainly to the shareholders of Heathrow Airport, many of whom are domiciled for tax abroad. This may create economic growth, but it won’t benefit people in this country.
Martin Sorrell: You know, economic growth does benefit people in the country. I mean it will benefit other people, too. But we’ve got to make some choices. Either we want to be comfortable, more comfortable in the future – or less comfortable in the future. And if we want the country to grow, we have to invest in infrastructure, not just a third runway in Heathrow, other airports and other developments. It’s industrial progress, it’s investment progress. And sure there will have to be some trade-offs. But the alternative is, I think, further industrial and economic gloom. If you want that, and we make a choice for that, so be it.
Krishnan Guru-Murthy: The government does point out this is some way off. There are increases in efficiency, in the kind of fuel planes are using. There’s development of electric aircraft. Things are changing. I mean, might it not be possible that this is sustainable? And if it’s all done within the carbon budget anyway, why does it matter?
Dale Vince: That would be great if it was true. Firstly, I reject Martin’s false choice between stagnation and a third runway. That’s not a real choice at all. We can have growth. The green economy grew 9% last year, compared to the general economy, which grew 0.1%. So the massive opportunities are in the green economy. I am aware of hydrogen electric planes. I’ve started an airline called Ecojet – the world’s first electric airline. I know where the technology is. I know how long it’s going to take to come to pass. So the idea that we can green up flying to compensate for this 50% increase in traffic from Heathrow is bonkers.
Krishnan Guru-Murthy: There’s been a lot of talk of animal spirits and unleashing animal spirits in the economy. And that, you know, new runways are part of all that. I mean, do you buy that? You know, that green lighting a third runway somehow makes people feel more buoyant?
Martin Sorrell: The chancellor herself drew attention to the fact that President Trump takes a slightly more optimistic attitude towards the growth and development of the economy, and that we should do the same. To isolate the third runway is the wrong thing to do. It is part of an overall programme, an overall planning programme, a programme around capital markets, around financial services, about the planning function itself, around AI, around bringing talented people to the country. The world is a much more mobile and fluid place and we have to choose post-Brexit whether we want this country to be a foundation for growth and development and reap that benefit or continue in the decline. In relation to America, we are… the gap is widening and broadening.
Krishnan Guru-Murthy: Dale Vince, if your side wins, and instead you see expansion at Schiphol or Paris or somewhere else in Europe, I mean, those carbon emissions are still going into the atmosphere, aren’t they? I mean, what do we gain overall?
Dale Vince: Again, I say that’s a false choice from Martin. It’s not about choosing decline or a third runway. The package announced today – 150 infrastructure projects going ahead, the Silicon Valley, all that kind of stuff – not against that, I’m against the third runway. Will Schiphol Airport expand? I don’t know. But if they do and they become the hub for other people to stop for a couple of hours and then travel to another country, leaving no economic benefit, or if they become the airport where Dutch people leave their country to spend their money abroad, then I say they’ve got the negative aspects that we’ve avoided over Heathrow.
Krishnan Guru-Murthy: Last word, Martin Sorrell?
Martin Sorrell: Well, infrastructure – hard and soft – is a key part of any growth plan, whether you’re a company or a country. Third runway at Heathrow, along with other developments around the airline industry and transport, are critically important. Rejected? We’ll take the consequences. But let’s be quite clear. There will be consequences.