Stewart Wingate and senior Gatwick staff refuse to appear before group of local area MPs in Parliament

Sir Paul Beresford, MP for Mole Valley, has complained that Gatwick Airport Limited (GAL) has refused to appear publicly before MPs at the House of Commons to answer questions on their 2nd runway proposal.  The Chairman of the “Gatwick Coordination Group”, Crispin Blunt MP, invited Stewart Wingate, and Gatwick senior management to appear before the group in a Select Committee-style hearing in January 2015. But GAL has declined the invitation, saying GAL directors “do not think that a further public meeting is necessary”. Commenting on GAL’s decision, Sir Paul said “The MPs on the Gatwick Coordination Group collectively represent over half a million people whose lives stands to be affected by the airport’s expansion. …. Gatwick have failed to answer key points on the resilience of their surface access plan. If a second runway was to be built at Gatwick access both to and from the airport would become extraordinarily difficult.  …. Gatwick’s refusal to participate in an extended public scrutiny ….is an abdication of their responsibility as a corporate citizen in both Surrey and Mole Valley. However, given GAL’s inability to answer key questions on “show stopping” issues it is perhaps unsurprising they do not welcome further scrutiny.”
.

 

 

Gatwick Refuse Public Questioning By Local MPs

18.12.2014 (By Sir Paul Beresford, sent to constituents on his mailing list)

 

Gatwick Airport Limited (GAL) has refused to appear publicly before MPs at the House of Commons to answer questions on their second runway proposal, it was confirmed yesterday.

The Chairman of the Gatwick Coordination Group, Crispin Blunt MP, invited the Airport’s CEO, Stewart Wingate, and its senior management team to appear before the other local MPs on the group in a Select Committee-style hearing in January 2015.

However, GAL yesterday declined the invitation, claiming that given the Airports Commission’s own public discussion session, and private meetings with MPs, had been held, the company’s directors “do not think that a further public meeting is necessary”.

Commenting on GAL’s decision, Sir Paul Beresford said “The MPs on the Gatwick Coordination Group collectively represent over half a million people whose lives stands to be affected by the airport’s expansion.

Enlargement of Gatwick as proposed will give London two ½ hub airports linked by the frequently crowded M25.

Gatwick have failed to answer key points on the resilience of their surface access plan. If a second runway was to be built at Gatwick access both to and from the airport would become extraordinarily difficult. The M23 is not a viable answer to these problems, stopping as it does just south of Croydon and more locally, roads are already at near peak capacity and simply cannot handle the enormous increase in traffic a second runway would bring. Gatwick has made token commitments towards modernising the surrounding road network but these empty gestures are precisely that and would be a drop in the required financial ocean.

There is also no answer forthcoming to the point that Gatwick is now estimated to be £100 billion behind Heathrow in terms of national economic benefit, and that there is no available labour force to staff this vast new business and scores of thousands of extra homes will be required in the area, when all local planning authorities are really struggling to work out how to meet existing housing demand.

On the question of housing, it is quite plain whatever Gatwick may say, that the vast majority of any new housing required would have to be built on precious and irrecoverable Green Belt land. This is an unacceptable loss – I strongly believe that we must not throw away our idyllic Surrey surroundings for the knock on building and enlarged infrastructure requirements for Gatwick’s second runway.
There is also a serious democratic issue here. They have declined to publish the financial assumptions on which they have made their case to the Davies Commission. This meeting was the last chance for us on behalf of the people we represent to publicly challenge why their numbers and assumptions remain secret.

Gatwick’s refusal to participate in an extended public scrutiny of their proposals by their local elected national representatives in a select committee type hearing is an abdication of their responsibility as a corporate citizen in both Surrey and Mole Valley. However, given GAL’s inability to answer key questions on “show stopping” issues it is perhaps unsurprising they do not welcome further scrutiny.

They do have some things to hide: They rely on one very busy rail line, while Heathrow will have a choice of five rail routes. When that stops, Gatwick largely stops. They rely on one slow arterial route out of central London, the A23, or routes via the M25. No strategic improvement is planned or would be funded by GAL.

They cannot guarantee that their shareholders will put up the finance, and their largest will be looking to disinvest before the money is required. There is no existing labour force to make this proposal work. The Commission rate them £100 billion behind Heathrow expansion in terms of national economic benefit, and they can’t challenge this when they won’t publish their numbers.

This refusal will only further damage the opinion of our constituents have of a company which has already had a catastrophic year of local relations owing to the misery inflicted upon tens of thousands of them by PR-NAV.

From Christmas Eve 2013 until now Gatwick have had an awful year. Flooding, baggage handler shortage, air traffic control, rail disruption, and new flight paths creating massive pain for their neighbours. Burying their head in the sand won’t make it go away. A vast advertising budget funded by a company domiciled abroad does not make the case for second runway. Openness to scrutiny might. Then again, I think they know it probably wouldn’t help. So this decision comes as no surprise.”

https://www.conservatives.com/OurTeam/Members_of_Parliament/Beresford_Sir_Paul.aspx