Dodgy Consultants
|
Aviation |
One of the most consistent features of the government's and the aviation industry's campaigns to expand airports and air travel has been to employ dubious consultants to try and justify their case. We give below just a few examples.
Dodgy ecologists
BAA employed an ecologist Penny Anderson to report on the ecological impacts of Terminal 5. She failed to find (or failed to report) the presence of one of the rarest plants in SE England - water avens - until it was reported by hard-pressed and unfunded volunteers. This was among her other shortcomings. See T5 ecology issues. The Department for Transport were so impressed that they employed her as well! So we had an ecologist in the pay of a developer then employed by an allegedly impartial government. (The site of the water avens has now been trashed by BAA. Contact us for further information.)
Dodgy economists
BAA and others in the aviation industry employed economic consultants called 'Oxford Economic Forecasting' (OEF). They paid 90% of the costs, but the government nonetheless took the results as its own and used them in its consultation on airports policy. OEF's study contained a number of fundamental flaws in its attempts to demonstrate for its paymasters the economic benefits of a massive growth in air travel. These flaws were exposed by FOE and other NGOs (non-governmental organsiations) as well as another economic consultancy, Berkeley Hanover. See rigged economics study.
Dodgy analysts for airports consultation
The government has appointed consultants close to BAA and the aviation industry to analyse the respones to it own airports consultation. This latest revelation is just one more of a series that show that the government is deliberately biasing the consultation at every stage in favour of what the industry wants. For more on this latest story, contact us.
? Dodgy air pollution consultants
As part of its studies into the impacts of airport expansion, the government appointed a consultancy, AEA, to assess the impact on air pollution if a third runway wereto be built at Heathrow. This showed that the air pollution would breach standards over a wide area set by the UK government and the EU to protect human health. 35,000 people would be exposed to illegal levels of air pollution, so 14,000 homes would have to be demolished. See Heathrow Runway 3 threat. The response of British Airways and BAA was to pay AEA to carry out a new study. The result - surprise, surprise - is that the air pollution will not be nearly as bad as originally forecast. Only 5000 people will have to be moved - a price that can comfortably be paid for out of the returns from Runway 3.
It can be argued that AEA are not to blame. Apparently, they were asked to re-run their computer models making more optimistic assumptions about emissions from individual aircraft. AEA duly did as asked. The issue is should a consultancy simply undertake work on the basis of assumptions and Terms of Reference given to them by their client? Or do they have a ethical duty to question the basis of the studies that they do?
Dodgy consultant for Select Committee
The House of Commons Select Committee on Transport has appointed an industry consultant, Laurie Price. It was reported in the national press that he has a financial interest in Redhill airport.
Who else ?
These are just some of the dodgy consultants that the government uses. How many more do we not know about? Why does the government time after time use these dodgy consultants? The conclusion seems clear. Only by employing industry consultants, who have a financial interest in producing pro-industry and pro-growth reports, can the the government justify its pre-determined decision to expand airport capacity, irrespective of the evironmental impact.
What is the answer ?
Obviously, no one can stop vested interests employing consultants to carry out studies for them. But where a study is to be used for some public purpose, such as a planning application, a public inquiry or a government consultation, an open and honest process is needed. Whenever consultants are so employed, a 'steering group' should be appointed which includes 'stakeholders' who do not represent vested interests and/or those paying for the study. The steering group should vet the consultants, the terms of reference and the results. Importantly, there should be an opportunity for a public examination of the results. This means that the consultants would have to justify and defend their conclusions if there were concerns about their validity or impartiality.
Postscript
We have found out that Tony Blair's No 10 Policy Unit is having cosy meetings with the industry lobby group, Freedom to Fly and is offering it advice. Contact us for more information.