Archived press release

Legal Decision on Aviation White Paper Due

16 February 2005

This Friday (18^th February, 10am), the High Court will announce the result of the Judicial Review of the Government's 2003 Aviation White Paper. Three legal challenges were brought by airport campaign groups, councils and two businessmen. It's the first time that a Government white paper has been challenged in this way.

The Government's Aviation White Paper (2003) proposed building at least three new runways and expansion of many other airports to accommodate a massive increase in air traffic by 2030 [1]

What the challenges said:

• The Government failed to adequately consult on all the options for airport expansion; for example, the public were not asked their views on proposals to:
  • Extend the runway at Luton
  • Alternate runway use at Heathrow
• The questionable economic case for building a second runway at Stansted conflicts with the Government's own consultation documents that required `commercial viability'
• The Government failed to conduct a full environmental impact assessment of the White Paper proposals as required by European Law
• Proposals for the possible future expansion of Gatwick impose unnecessary blight on land around the airport

What are the possible outcomes and what could they mean?

Justice Sullivan, who will make the ruling on Friday, has three main options:-

• Reject the legal challenge(s) outright
• To find 100% in favour of the objectors
• To accept some of the objectors points

If the Government loses on some or all of the points, it is likely that it will go to the Court of Appeal. Ultimately the Government could be forced to withdraw and re-issue the White Paper after a fresh public consultation.

What Friends of the Earth thinks:

The result will be significant, whatever the ruling, because it is the first time a White Paper has been challenged in this way. The Judicial Review has also revealed strong concerns within Government about the economic viability of its `predict and provide' aviation policy [2], in addition to the grave implications of its impact on the environment.

The High Court may ultimately force the Government to re-issue the White Paper, but Friends of the Earth believes Ministers should in any case use the opportunity of the planned 2006 progress review [3] to scale down their airport expansion plans.

Respected bodies such as Parliament's Environmental Audit Committee, the Sustainable Development Commission and the Lords European Committee have all been critical of the Government's expansionist approach [4].

A re-issued White Paper should:

• Cancel all new runways. The Government's own modelling has shown that if fair taxation were applied to the aviation industry no runways would be necessary [5].
• Ensure that carbon dioxide emissions from aviation are stabilised or reduced in order that our climate change targets can be met [6].
• Ensure that `the polluter pays' principle is applied to the aviation industry- this Government promised this in 1998 but this promise has not been honoured [7].
• Commit the Government to tackling the unfair tax exemptions on fuel and VAT that are partly responsible for the unsustainable rate of air traffic growth. Air Passenger Duty, the only existing tax on flights has fallen in real terms while Labour has been in power. Friends of the Earth believes this should be increased in lieu of international agreement to remove the other tax exemptions [8].
• Commit to bringing all UK airports within the Night Noise regulatory regime ASAP with a medium term commitment to reduce night noise to World Health Organisation recommended levels

Friends of the Earth Aviation Campaigner Richard Dyer said:

"These legal challenges are a vital test of whether ministers followed correct procedures in drawing up the aviation White Paper. But whatever the result on Friday, opposition to the Government's reckless aviation policy will continue to grow. The Government must listen and scale down its expansion plans which pose an unacceptable threat to the environment and communities."

Notes

[1] DfT:- The Future of Air Transport (December 2003)

[2] See `Stansted Expansion Not Viable' - Sunday Times 9/2/05

[3] "The Government will monitor and evaluate the effectiveness and impact of the policies set out in this White Paper. We will report in 2006 on progress." - `Next Steps' the Future of Air Transport (DfT)

[4] EAC - "Pre-Budget Report 2003: Aviation Follow-up"

SDC - "Missed Opportunity - Critique of Aviation White Paper"

House of Lords Report - "EU and Climate Change" Nov. 2004

[5] `Spasm' computer model re-run see:- `Hidden cost of Flying' (PDF)

[6] see:- [4] EAC report said Planned aviation expansion will render Government targets to reduce CO2 emissions "meaningless and unachievable"

[7] 1998 Transport White Paper said aviation must pay for it's environmental impact, 2004 HM Treasury paper gave £1.4 billion p.a as cost of Climate Change alone (2000), Air Passenger Duty raises £0.8billion p.a

[8] Kerosene tax for international flights is governed by International Conventions

†To view PDF files you will need to download Adobe Acrobat Reader. Visually impaired users can get extra help with these documents from access.adobe.com.

If you're a journalist looking for press information please contact the Friends of the Earth media team on 020 7566 1649.

Published by Friends of the Earth Trust