It looks like the government have been caught out over plans for a third runway at Heathrow airport. Incredibly, the Times is reporting that The Department for Transport has secretly passed key information supporting the expansion of Heathrow to BBA six months before it is due to be published in a consultation document. Not only does this prove that a government consultation is merely a closed decision dressed up in democracy clothes, but it also stinks collusion and corruption.
This government has made no secret of its plans to increase air capacity - in the same way it has made no secret of its commitment to the environment (though of course, they are both completely unrelated... ahem.). The Times reports "a team of 34 people working with civil servants, influencing the tests so that they find in favour of building the new runway. The department has given BAA a full copy of the preliminary results but is refusing to allow any opponents of the expansion to see them." It also just so happens that BAA was bought last year by the Spanish firm Ferrovial for way over the odds and are desperate to for a third runway to make some of the £10bn investment back. So no doubt they will be very happy to get their hands on this report and get a head start over the opposition. But how can the government justify a report largely based on air pollution and paid for by public money only going to the company that wants to build the runway? What about the local authorities that are opposed to the expansion? Until the rest of us get to see it, we won't know, but it will be no surprise if the consultation is a whitewash saying that pollution and noise is not a problem and a third runway should go ahead.
Comments
Environment vs Air Capacity
I'm sure the government's plans to increase capacity and its commitment to the environment don't have to be mutually exclusive...as long as people pay the right amount to reflect the REAL cost of flying (ie. damage to the environment). More importantly, BAA should be broken up - it's a disgrace that the same company runs the busiest international airport in the world and the busiest single-runway airport in the world. It's a monopoly!!!!
I know the Head of Supply Chain at BAA (mmmm...) and it sounds like the place needs a good kick up the backside. Nothing like a bit of competition of focus attention.
You're right, but I think
You're right, but I think they are mutually exclusive for the government when it suits. I have long suspected this government and the opposition parties of paying lip service to the environment. The Aviation White paper in 2003 is totally disconnected from the last two Energy White Papers. This story alone suggests (though only suggests I admit) that they are trying to get the air and noise pollution issues through the back door, giving great advantage to BAA who would rather see their investment paid off than "save the planet". This is about hard and fast cash and the economy - the environment will not get in the way of that. It annoys me that they can be selective about when to use the environment card to push through an idea (e.g. chip&bin) but sweep it under the carpet when it becomes a problem for them.