UPROAR
Press release 31 July 2006 Dublin Airport consultants now admit that DAA estimates of jobs and income created directly and indirectly by the new runway will not be additional, and are not economic benefits. It is clear that the DAA sought to distort and mislead and scare workers about airport jobs, did so, and continue to do so on their website which still presents this disinformation. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared for the proposed new runway by DAA consultants in 2005 contains an "Employment and Economics" chapter which argues that jobs and income to be created directly and indirectly by the new runway were substantial and could be taken as economic benefits of the new runway, which would be lost if the runway was not built. This is crucial to their case, because if the runway is not in the national interest they cannot abuse the rights of communities affected by the new runway. In the EIS Part 1, the Non-Technical Summary it is concluded: "The impact of the proposed new runway in 2025 would be around 30% more local, regional and national employment and annual income. This translates into around 3,900 and €145 million in income (at 2001 prices) locally, 7,200 jobs and €451 million of income regionally, and 11,900 jobs and €741 million of income nationally." Buried in the main report is an admission in technical jargon that these jobs and income benefits are gross, not net (additional), but this caveat is subsequently ignored everywhere else in the report and is flatly contradicted in its summary, just quoted above. UPROAR
said that these runway-related jobs would not be additional and therefore
could not be claimed as economic benefits. (See: "The Economics
of the Proposed Runway" at www.norunway.com/bp/bp.htm). In a situation
of near full-employment, if jobs result, they will be sucked in from
elsewhere. This will create problems for local employers and businesses
trying to recruit people with similar skills, and add to road congestion
and wage and property price inflation in Fingal. Further, pulling even
more jobs into the Dublin area flies in the face of National Spatial
Strategy and decentralisation policy, which is intended to encourage
development in regions suffering from unbalanced competition with Dublin
by a policy of positive discrimination in their favour. Such action
by the DAA is a national economic cost, not a benefit. On the other
hand, moving jobs away from Dublin would be a net The response of airport consultants RPS (1) to our criticism of the exaggeration of runway job benefits is now to claim: "...it was never implied that the jobs created and income generated directly and indirectly by the project would be additional to the economy." And further to concede: "It is agreed that the jobs supported and the income generated are not a measure of economic benefit." In spite of this claim and withdrawal, the DAA's own website, continues to say: "The overall impact of a new runway would be to facilitate additional aircraft and passenger traffic, thus adding another 30% to local, regional and national employment and to annual income." (2) Not only is there no caveat here, but also the use of the term "adding" to local, regional and national employment, clearly contradicts that caveat and the consultants' claim that is has "never" been abused. The second retraction, that the jobs and income estimates are not a measure of economic benefit is also very important. It means a huge part of the DAA's case for this runway is withdrawn by their own consultants. The basis of their claim in the EIS to have shown this runway to be in the national interest, has been withdrawn. They therefore have no legal or moral right to deprive local communities of their human rights by building this runway and its dangerous and polluting flight path on top of them. UPROAR believes real jobs and income can be created where they are most needed, if any additional airport capacity required is developed elsewhere, either at Cork or Shannon or at a second Dublin Airport located away from established communities but adjacent to the Greater Dublin Area. UPROAR demands that Department of Finance Guidelines be followed and this proposal be subjected to the full independent cost-benefit analysis required, which will demonstrate that the proposal is a colossal waste of public and private assets. The same consultants claim the Finance Guidelines were followed, but cannot produce such a cost benefit study study which they say would be "of questionable value". 1 "Observations on Third party Appeals", prepared on behalf of Dublin Airport Authority, plc by RPS Planning and Environment, June 2006. 2 http://www.dublinairport.com/about-us/airport development/Parallel_Runway.html |