| Rigged economic study on aviation |  |
|
Here is a story that is hardly likely to hit the headlines. At first sight only of interest to economists or people interested in aviation. But it encapsulates some of the biggest issues today. How the government is being run for big business, rather than for the people who voted it in. How the environment is in reality being ignored, while lip service is paid. How the DETR and politicians such as Glenda Jackson quietly subvert the aspirations of ordinary people for a better environment and a better future.
What is this study ?
Following the Integrated Transport White Paper [ Note 1 ], a study has been set up :
CONTRIBUTION OF THE AVIATION INDUSTRY TO THE ECONOMY OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
This study is meant to help the Government to establish a new policy on behalf of the people of the UK on air transport. (Aviation, which still carries connotations of glamour, is more properly described as "air transport".) Such a study ought to be thorough and unbiased. Instead, we see a study which is clearly intended to try and show the maximum economic benefits of air transport while ignoring any costs or 'disbenefits'. There can only be one objective of such a biased study - to bolster up the argument of economic benefits as justification for reckless expansion, irrespective of its effect on ordinary people and their environment.
Who is this study for ?
The study has been sponsored jointly by airlines, airport operators and the DETR (Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions). It is obvious that the industry has a vested interest in exaggerating and ‘hyping up’ any economic benefits of air transport. In this way it can hope to continue with its favored and subsidised status [ Note 2 ]. The DETR, by allowing the airline and airport operators to run and pay for much of the study, clearly remains in the pocket of the industry [ Note 3 ] [ Note 4 ]
What is wrong with the Terms of Reference ?
The Terms of Reference (ToRs) of the study give further ample evidence that the study is a "set up job". Throughout the ToRs, the potential economic benefits of air transport are emphasised but the corresponding potential ‘disbenefits’ are ignored. The potential of air travel to bring in money and investment from abroad ("Foreign Direct Investment" or FDI) is emphasised in the ToRs. But air travel equally facilitates money and investment being taken out of the country - and this is studiously ignored in the study. The potential benefits of foreign tourists coming into the UK is emphasised. But the study doesn’t want to know about the cost of UK tourists going abroad. [ Note 5 ]
One does not have to be an economist to see that if national resources are devoted to air transport, these resources are not then available elsewhere in our economy. If people did not spend their money on air travel, there would not be a ‘hole’ in our economy. People would spend their money on something else, generating economic activity and jobs elsewhere. It is essential that this factor is taken into account if one wishes to ascertain the real contribution of the industry to the economy. Yet the ToRs totally ignore it.
The air transport industry benefits from a whole series of favours and subsidies. [ Note 2 ] These subsidies are of great importance if one wishes to understand the true economic significance of air transport. Yet the study studiously ignores any mention of this issue.
As if these concerns were not enough, we have the tacit statement that all environmental costs are to be ignored. There are now methods available to calculate the economic cost of damage to the environment or people’s quality of life such as noise, air pollution or global warming. But this study specifically excludes such environmental costs. [ Note 6 ]
Who is responsible for this sordid affair ?
One can understand that the airlines and airport operators would be more than happy to promote and pay for a biased study such as this, designed as it is to demonstrate economic benefits of air transport. The results of the study can only help their commercial aims by justifying the expansion of air travel and airports. After all, their objective is to make money for their directors and shareholders.
Far more sinister is the role of the civil servants and politicians - people who we might expect to represent the interests of ordinary people and to look after the environment - but who are manifestly failing to do so. These people responsible do not advertise their role, but it is not difficult to work out who they are.
The civil servant with primary responsibility for the study must surely be the Head of the Civil Aviation Directorate in the DETR at the time the study was initiated, Tony Goldman. (He was also the person who, as head of the Division, had ultimate responsiblity for the outrageous, biased, performance of the DETR in support of BAA at the Heathrow Terminal 5 Public Inquiry.)
The politician responsible is clearly Glenda Jackson, the minister for aviation. (Ms Jackson was the person who also made the decision to inflict the misery of night flights on the population of West London for another 5 years and who failed to progress legislation on aircraft, despite commitments by this government and the previous one. Ms Jackson has now resigned as a minister in order to campaign for election as Mayor of London. Voters may care to consider whether they want a mayor who so obviously puts the commercial interests of big business ahead of the interests of ordinary people. People who just want a decent quality of life and wish to protect their environment.)
On might also be justified in asking questions about the role of Oxford Economic Forecasting in this affair. They are the consultants who have been employed to carry out the study. Why are are these consultants, who presumably want to be seen as independent and reputable, involved with such a blatantly biased study ?
Update 23/9/99
Following complaints from ourselves and other organisations about the Terms of Reference and the bias implicit in the study, the organisations concerned have been invited to a meeting to discuss the matter. The organisations being Friends of the Earth (FoE), the Aviation Environment Federation (AEF), and the local authorities special interest group on air transport, SASIG. This is welcome. But we have been invited not by the DETR (Department of Environment, Transport and Regions), who are meant to be responsible for developing a national airports strategy. Nor by the consultants appointed to carry out this study - Oxford Economic Forecasting. We have been invited by BAA to meet at BAA's offices ! This can only confirm everyone's suspicions as to who is really running the show.
Further update 19/10/99
We duly met BAA, the DETR and Oxford Economic Forecasting (OEF) on 7/10/99 at the BAA offices. These parties were unable to give us assurances concerning the bias of the Terms of Reference. Worse was to come! A high profile media launch is to be held on 10 Nov at the DTI (Department of Trade and Industry) offices. The launch will include as speakers Lord McDonald, the new Minister for Transport, Adair Turner, Director General of the CBI and Lord Marshall, chairman of British Airways (BA). Needless to say, organisations such as FoE, who are concerned about people and the environment, were not invited to speak. Even more amazingly, the invitation came not from the Government, but from Lord Marshall, the chairman of BA. This latest development confirms, if evidence were needed, that this Government is now being run by big business.
The study has now been launched. See link for details.
Notes
Note 1. In July 1998 the Integrated Transport White Paper was published. This stated
.. we will prepare
a UK airports policy looking some 30 years ahead. This will develop the application ..
to the UK airports of the policies of sustainable development, integrated surface transport
and contribution to regional growth. It was also announced that this new National
Airports study would draw upon new studies of the role of airports in economic development.
Return to main text
Note 2. The air transport industry enjoys a whole series of favours and subsidies from
government. These include exemptions from legislation to protect citizens from noise and
tax-free fuel, estimated to cost the UK government £5 billion pa. For more information
on these issues contact us. For information on the subsidies enjoyed by the industry
across the EU, also contact West London Friends of the Earth.
Return to main text
Note 3. The industry has a history of making wild and unsubstantiated claims about the
importance of air transport to the economy and jobs. A recent example is where the industry
mounted a campaign of deceit and mis-information in an attempt to retain its perk of
duty-free goods. So much so that even the Financial Times called the claims fraudulent
See the story about duty-free.
The Government shamefully backed its industry ‘cronies’ in their campaign,
against the wider interests of the people of Britain and Europe.
Return to main text
Note 4. Another recent example of how the Government is in the pocket of the industry
is the case of Heathrow Terminal 5. At the Public Inquiry, which ended in March 1999,
the DETR supported BAA’s case for Terminal 5 at every opportunity. It even used BAA's own
'expert witnesses' to present its case. It also used public money to challenge by cross-examination
the objectors to Terminal 5 - but it never cross-examined BAA and its supporters.
This was despite the fact the DETR is meant to be neutral on
such issues and is meant to look after the interests of the citizens of the UK.
Return to main text
Note 5. It should be emphasised than we are not opposed to UK citizens travelling abroad
for holidays. People obviously enjoy foreign travel and perceive some personal benefit;
otherwise they would not do it. But the right of people to travel is a social and political
issue, not an economic one. The point we are making here is that whatever the perceived social
benefits of people travelling abroad, there is nonetheless a
cost to the UK economy. To ignore this cost, while emphasising benefits to the UK economy
of foreign tourists coming in, is disingenuous and is clearly intended to distort the study.
Return to main text
Note 6. In the ToRs, the reason for ignoring the environment was given as
The DETR will be taking forward separately the development of a policy on the
environnmental impact of aviation. This justification is,
frankly, ludicrous. The current study is just that - a study. All aspects of
the national airports policy - not just environmental aspects - will be taken forward
separately from this study. The whole purpose of the study is to inform the forthcoming
policy on airports as the government itself has made clear. This statement is simply a
pathetic attempt to justify a government plan to ignore the environment when it comes
to airports.
Return to main text
The study has now been launched. See link for details.
(Last updated 19/10/99)