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"

Who was in the loop over Heathrow? PDF Print E-mail
Wednesday, 08 April 2009 01:00

As opponents of the third Heathrow runway launch a legal challenge, they are asking why the government consulted on one set of proposals and then did something different. Why did ministers consult on a fully operational runway and agree one that could well operate at half capacity? Why did they claim to have honoured their environmental pledges and then introduce a new set of pledges? Who was in the loop when all this was agreed? And what was the role of business secretary Lord Mandelson?

Evidence has recently emerged that ministers and officials kept in close contact with the aviation industry on the Heathrow issue while telling opponents that they couldn't possibly discuss it. Two weeks ago, the Guardian revealed that the DfT maintained "high-level and frequent engagement with industry stakeholders including at ministerial level as necessary, to keep abreast of developments and strategies" on Heathrow.

The revelation came from DfT "risk register" documents, which had to be prised out of the department with the help of the information commissioner. Even when the papers were released, one high risk element was missing. It is clear that the risk related to the conduct of the post-consultation period. If ministers and officials repeatedly met the aviation industry against legal advice, perhaps they should indeed be worried.

Read the full article in The Guardian.


The government has taken many steps to push forward its Heathrow expansion agenda; a lot of them questionable.

We need to know the full extent of the collusion.
 
RocketTheme Joomla Templates