The Government & Aviation

Press aticles

A parliamentary inquiry into lobbying, launched on 21st June 2007, considered external regulation, government interaction and funding by lobby groups. Details of BAA's lobbying groups and its close links to government formed part of this inquiry.

Written evidence submitted shows that a level playing field does not exist when it comes to BAA and BA securing meetings with the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary of State for Transport.

The public administration select committee report said: "There has been widespread public concern that some areas of government policy have effectively been captured at an early stage by interest groups, usually within industry, and that public consultations have been unbalanced in the favour of these interests." It named Heathrow as an example of this and
concluded that lobbying needed to be open to public scrutiny.

A separate investigation also revealed that BAA and the government “fixed” environmental targets while researching the impact of the third runway.

Some articles on these and similar subjects are referenced here.

Early Day Motions

On 17th December, 2008, an Early Day Motion (EDM) demanding a vote on the third runway in the Commons was submitted. Gordon Brown has refused a vote.

To see which MPs have signed this EDM, please click on the title below.

"ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THIRD RUNWAY AT HEATHROW"


On 27th October, 2008, an EDM opposing the government's policy on the third runway was submitted for debate in the Commons. Although few EDMs make it to the floor of the House, a debate was held on 11th November, 2008, with the number of MPs speaking out against Heathrow expansion vastly outnumbering those in favour.

To see which MPs signed this EDM, please click the title below.

"GOVERNMENT POLICY ON THIRD RUNWAY AT HEATHROW AIRPORT"

Whitehall met aviation chiefs over Heathrow third runway PDF Print E-mail
Friday, 27 March 2009 01:00

Department for Transport civil servants repeatedly met aviation industry chiefs in advance of the decision to back a third runway at Heathrow, even though they told environmental groups that there was a blanket ban on meetings with any external bodies. The disclosure comes in documents the civil service was directed to release to Greenpeace by the information commissioner after nearly nine months of stonewalling by civil servants.

The documents, in the form of a risk register produced by the DfT last year, also disclose that the communications directorate at the department saw it as its job to "monitor protest groups continuously and brief staff and police accordingly". The risk register is a document listing everything that could go wrong with the project, the likelihood of something going wrong and how much of a problem such an event would be.

Ministers regarded losing the economic and environmental arguments as "high" impact and "medium" likelihood, combining to give a "high" exposure to risk for the government. The threat of disruption was seen as one of the highest risk threats to the third runway. The documents also disclose that at one point the department thought it would only be able to meet the noise reduction demands by introducing a congestion charge for the area.

Civil servants also advised that they continue high-level and frequent engagement with industry stakeholders, including at ministerial level, as necessary to keep abreast of developments and strategies. At the same time an environmental organisation was being emailed by transport department civil servants: "In advance of the meeting I would like to make clear that discussion of Heathrow expansion will not be possible. This is for reasons of propriety as the consultation has now closed and ministers are considering the submissions that have been made. This condition applies to all meetings that the secretary of state is holding with external groups. Wider issues around aviation and the environment may, of course, be discussed with the ministers."

Read the full article in
The Guardian.


Michael Meacher, during the Commons debate on Heathrow in April 2008 said, "I assume that no Minister was directly involved in the massaging of these data, but I believe that leading civil servants—including, as has been mentioned, David Gray, who appears in all the documents—should be disciplined and, if necessary, removed, which is what I believe would occur in any other sector of employment."

This shows they were "at it" even after the parliamentary debate. Action wasn't taken then. It certainly should be now.

 
RocketTheme Joomla Templates