Heathrow: National Airports Review

Monday 27th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Statement

19:41

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Wednesday 22 October.

“With permission, I will update the House on the steps this Government are taking to realise the benefits of expansion at Heathrow Airport, having invited proposals for a third runway earlier this year.

Today I am launching a review of the airports national policy statement. Britain wants to fly, and this Government will act to meet public aspirations. Our review of the ANPS will ensure that while we unlock long-term capacity for more flights at the nation’s only hub airport, we will also meet our obligations to passengers, communities and the environment. Today is a step forward for UK aviation and infrastructure, supporting growth in the economy and enabling a modern, efficient transport system that harnesses international investment, boosts connectivity and strengthens UK competitiveness.

We are committed to making a decision on a third runway at Heathrow within this Parliament, and we are clear in our ambition to see flights taking off on a new runway in 2035. We said we would get on with this, and we have. When the previous Government set up the Davies commission, it took them five years to publish the original draft ANPS. We will get to the same point in 18 months, with the process completed by the end of 2026, showing our commitment to delivering progress swiftly but robustly. When we say we back the builders, not the blockers, we mean it.

But this is not a blank cheque. Expansion at Heathrow must minimise cost for passengers and customers. The taxpayer must not be expected to foot the bill. That is why the scheme will be privately financed—both the core project and the related infrastructure improvements. Extra staff and passengers must be able to get to and from the airport without turning the M4 and M25 into Europe’s largest car park. Crucially, the expansion must align with our legal, environmental and climate commitments. Starting the review of the ANPS is critical to delivering expansion and will provide the basis for decisions on any future planning applications.

The world has changed since the last ANPS review in 2018, which is when it was designated. New environmental and climate obligations have been introduced, and patterns of travel have changed. However, pretty much every UK airport saw its busiest summer on record. We could put our head in the sand and pretend this is not the case, but we would be doing a disservice to our economy and to the next generation. That is why, in carrying out this review, we will consider how any proposed scheme must meet four clear tests: that it contributes to economic growth across the country; that it meets our air quality obligations; that it is consistent with our noise commitments; and, crucially, that it aligns with our legal obligations on climate change, including net zero.

We will seek the independent opinion of the Climate Change Committee, which I will write to shortly to request this advice. While a third runway at Heathrow has been factored into carbon budget 6, it is right that we update our modelling and seek the views of the CCC. Given Heathrow’s national importance, we will also consider naming the airport as critical national priority infrastructure, in line with our approach to low-carbon energy projects. We are further considering whether to name a statutory undertaker as an appropriate person to carry out the project under the Planning Act 2008, providing additional clarity to stakeholders and the local community. It is clear that this is a large and complex programme that requires a thorough and evidence-led approach. Over the coming months, my department will develop analysis on economic and environmental impacts of expansion. We will also undertake an appraisal of sustainability, as required by statute, alongside a habitats regulations assessment and other necessary technical work. If amendments are needed to the ANPS as a result of the review, we expect to consult on an amended policy statement by next summer. Communities will be able to have their say and we will shortly publish an updated stakeholder engagement approach to ensure transparency and fairness throughout the process.

Earlier this year, we invited potential promoters to submit proposals for delivering a third runway at Heathrow. Seven proposals were received and were considered by officials from the Department for Transport, the Treasury, and expert financial and technical advisers. Following that assessment, two potential schemes remain under active consideration: a proposal from Heathrow Airport Limited and a proposal from the Aurora Group. We know that we must provide as much clarity and certainty for communities, investors and users of Heathrow as soon as possible, so we are seeking further information on the two proposed schemes with a view to reaching a final decision on a single scheme to inform the remainder of the ANPS review by the end of November.

When making that decision, we will consider: the interoperability of the proposed scheme with existing infrastructure; the plans for transport to and from the airport and associated road schemes; the land take and impact on surrounding homes and communities; the evidence that the scheme can be privately financed; and the economic benefits of the scheme. This Government are committed to moving quickly but we will also do this properly.

To deliver the scheme on time, the Government are also pressing ahead with a series of enabling reforms. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill will streamline the delivery of major infrastructure, including Heathrow. That includes faster consenting routes and more proportionate consultations. On judicial reviews, we have announced that we will work with the judiciary to cut the amount of time it takes for a review to move through the court system for national policy statements and nationally significant infrastructure projects. We are establishing the UK Airspace Design Service to deliver modernised airspace. That will initially prioritise airspace design for the London region, supporting both Heathrow and the wider network, and will also make flight paths more efficient so that planes spend less time over London. We will initiate slot reform to ensure future allocation maximises the benefits of an expanded Heathrow, as well as approved growth at Gatwick and Luton for passengers, local communities and businesses.

Expanding Heathrow will be one of the largest infrastructure projects in the UK. Rigorous and effective cost control will be essential to its success, both in minimising any impact on airline charges and costs to passengers and in maintaining credibility with financial markets. The Government will therefore work with the Civil Aviation Authority to review the framework for economic regulation for capacity expansion at Heathrow, ensuring the model provides strong incentives for cost-effective delivery. We expect the CAA to publish a working paper in November, with a view to that work completing next summer.

This is a landmark opportunity for Heathrow, for the aviation sector and for the UK economy. The Government remain fully committed to ensuring the expansion is delivered in a way that is timely, cost-efficient and environmentally responsible. I commend this Statement to the House”.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, the Statement does two things: it announces a review of the Airports National Policy Statement, but gives us little idea in detail as to how it is to be revised, and it tells us that the only two credible proposals for Heathrow’s expansion are still being considered and that the more fanciful proposals have been dismissed. The two are linked because the core purpose of the current ANPS is to facilitate the expansion of Heathrow. In my view, the timing of the Statement is nakedly intended to persuade the OBR that the project is real and deliverable. I wish to test that.

First, there is the question of delivery of a revised ANPS, which I must say I think Ministers are rather reckless to embark on. The current Airports National Policy Statement was produced under the premiership of my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead and expressly favoured the expansion of Heathrow. It survived scrutiny in the High Court and was appealed to the Court of Appeal by environmental groups on no fewer than 17 grounds of challenge and fell on a single one—the legal meaning of the word “policy”. On that arcane question the whole statement fell. By then, the Government were in the hands of Mr Johnson, who was perfectly content with that outcome. But Heathrow took up the cudgels, and the case went to the Supreme Court, which restored the ANPS.

The timeline tells its own story. In 2015, the Airports Commission recommended a third runway. In 2018, Parliament approved it by 415 votes to 119, yet only by December 2020 did the Supreme Court clear the legal path for Heathrow to proceed—five years ago. Now, in October 2025, Ministers tell us rather recklessly that the policy is going to be revised and accelerated and we are going to go through the whole process again, with all the potential challenges involved. It is a brave or reckless Government who set out on this course.

The Government have an answer to this. In the Statement, the Secretary of State says:

“On judicial reviews, we have announced that we will work with the judiciary to cut the amount of time it takes for a review to move through the court system for national policy statements and nationally significant infrastructure projects”.


At present, the average time for such reviews stands at roughly 1.4 years. What is the Government’s target? How long do the Government expect it to take for the new airports national policy statement to be approved? Remember, it is the Chancellor’s ambition that this runway should open in 2035, with spades in the ground many years before that, given how much muck has to be moved in order to embrace Heathrow’s plans. I am indeed making the simplifying assumption—it may not be true—that the Heathrow proposal is the one eventually chosen by the Government in November and not the alternative scheme. I may be wrong about that, but I think my assumption is reasonable and, for the moment, simplifying. That gives us five years.

Meanwhile, public debate on the whole thing has been minimal, because we have very little information about the proposals. The projected cost of Heathrow expansion stands at £49 billion. The market value of Heathrow Airport, which we know from the last time its shares traded last year, is around £9.5 billion, even though its regulated asset base is closer to £20 billion. People are willing to pay £9.5 billion for something which has a regulated asset base of £20 billion, and they are then proposing that, despite the fact that it is heavily leveraged, much more so than it was 10 years ago when it was discussing this project, we have to reckon with the fact that it wants to spend at least £49 billion—that is the publicly quoted figure; it may be more by now—on a third runway to increase capacity by 50%. My second question is whether this is credibly financeable and whether the Government believe that it is.

However, the airlines do not trust Heathrow, because they are expected to pay in advance off the regulated asset base. In fact, they are paying already, because the CAA has approved that some of the costs that Heathrow incurs can already be charged to the airlines and thus to the flying passengers. They think that because Heathrow is incentivised by the current regime to make its expenditure as high as possible, it is untrustworthy. They point to various things, such as a new baggage system completed in 2016, which was priced at £234 million but ended up costing £435 million, and a cargo tunnel with a budget of £44.9 million that ended up with an estimated cost of £197 million. They point, in contrast to Heathrow’s plan to spend £49 billion on a single runway, to terminals at Barcelona, Frankfurt, Madrid and Munich, that all cost half or less when taking the size of the terminals into account; the fact that Changi is expected to create a new terminal for £8 billion; and that New York’s JFK will open its new Terminal 1 in 2026, the centrepiece of a £15 billion transformation that will be completed by 2030.

What are the Government going to do about Heathrow and its regulatory structures? They say that they are going to change them. The Statement says:

“The Government will therefore work with the Civil Aviation Authority to review the framework for economic regulation for capacity expansion at Heathrow, ensuring the model provides strong incentives for cost-effective delivery”.


What has the Civil Aviation Authority, the regulator, been doing for the last 20 years in that case, if it has not been ensuring firm delivery? So my third question is: what are the Government going to do about that?

I plan to speak for eight minutes.

There is also the matter of noise, which I would like to pursue at some stage, but not at the moment. With that, I will sit down, but I believe that the Government have a lot to do to show that this project is credible, and that they are not contributing to its fast delivery by revising the airports national policy statement at this stage.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome this debate on the review of the airports national policy statement and the Government’s announcement regarding Heathrow. But let me be very clear that the Liberal Democrat Benches believe that expansion of Heathrow would be a mistake from the Government and deliver a blow to our net-zero commitments.

A reliable and safe transport system is vital for economic prosperity in all parts of the country, and improving transport is essential to combat climate change and air pollution, but we must ensure that new infrastructure supports the UK’s climate targets. Analysis from the New Economics Foundation suggests that approving the expansion of Heathrow Airport would cancel out the climate benefit of the Government’s clean power plan within five years, and expansion of Gatwick and Luton Airports would cancel out the climate benefit of the CPP by 2050, so the Government’s sudden support for airport expansion just does not stack up.

Ed Miliband, speaking at the Environmental Audit Committee on 27 January this year, said:

“Any aviation expansion must be justified within carbon budgets … If it cannot be justified it will not go ahead”.


Will the Minister confirm that the four new tests—the evidence-led approach set out by the Secretary of State—will have to be met in their entirety before this Government will give the green light to Heathrow expansion? Will the Government publish the metrics for each of these four new tests so that there is transparency in the assessment? Will the Minister confirm that they will not proceed with Heathrow expansion if the Climate Change Committee advises that the plans do not meet legal obligations on climate change, including net-zero or air-quality obligations?

Let us look at noise pollution. It is a really big issue. Around 700,000 people are impacted currently by noise from Heathrow. It is not just those who are living in places such as Richmond, Kingston, Hounslow and Surrey—around the airport site. In places such as Lambeth and Southwark, residents have the clash of Heathrow flights and City Airport flights throughout the day, causing serious nuisance. The CAA workbook has highlighted that the number of those who are overflown could double to 1.5 million under some Heathrow expansion plans. Noise is an issue which many people feel has escaped any meaningful legal control for too long, leaving overflown communities exposed to excessive noise, impacting their health and quality of life. As part of this work, will the Government adopt the World Health Organization’s recommended noise levels to address noise pollution from the operations of Heathrow Airport?

I come to the point about surface access. While we do not want to see expansion and we do not believe it stacks up economically or environmentally, the last thing the area needs is an airport expansion plan that does not address and fund fully surface transport to the airport. It is a problem now and, therefore, higher modal share for public transport must be a foundation block for the Government’s assessment. Can the Minister confirm the Government’s commitment to fully funded surface transport access as part of this work? As part of the assessment of the two options, will the Government ensure that surface rail access, including the southern and western rail links, are an integral part? Will the Government consider the future of the premium Heathrow Express line as part of its surface access assessment, and when will this be published?

I pick up particularly these points around rail surface access because the letter from the Secretary of State in June stressed

“surface access mode share targets, including elements of a surface access strategy”

and went on to talk about it covering

“public transport, and active travel”.

Yet in the letter that was published last week, on 22 October, under the heading “Surface access”, it states:

“To minimise unnecessary disruption, please provide additional information regarding the construction of road schemes”.


Rail seems to have been downgraded. I really want some assurance from the Minister today.

In an attempt to demonstrate growth, the Government are misguided in thinking that an expanded Heathrow can deliver for the whole country. There are many other schemes that would deliver a lot more for communities across the country. We do not support Heathrow expansion and will closely monitor every stage of this process to ensure that local communities are heard loudly and clearly.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)]

My Lords, I think the place to start here is to say that it is quite clear that having more capacity for an airport that has been at capacity for two decades is a really important step for economic growth and the future of our country. Heathrow is the only international airport hub in Britain: it deserves to function properly and for the economy of the nation.

I shall refer first to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, many of which seemed to me to be, on the whole, a criticism of his party’s previous actions in government rather than a critique of what this Government are doing. The fact that the last review took an awfully long time to get to not much of a conclusion is not necessarily a criticism of how this Government intend to proceed. Indeed, we believe that we have a realistic timetable to do so.

The noble Lord assumes that one of the two schemes being taken forward at present, the scheme from Heathrow Airport Ltd, is the one that will be pursued, but that is not an assumption that this Government are making, because we will consider more fully the two remaining schemes to be considered, which differ and clearly have different implications and prices. It is important that they are considered in comparison with each other. Part of that consideration, as the noble Lord notes, is whether they are financeable: what they cost and how they are going to be funded.

It is right that the Civil Aviation Authority looks at the framework for economic regulation. That is, as the noble Lord says, what it does, but it needs to look again in the circumstances in which we are contemplating such a large-scale expansion of the principal—the only—hub airport in Britain.

The noble Lord says that the Government have a lot to do to show that this process is credible. The Government are starting on that process with every intention of showing that it is credible, to do something that previous Governments have not done, with a timescale that is tight but very realistic.

In respect of the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, that expansion is a mistake, the first thing to say is that is hard to see what else you can do, as this is the only hub airport in Britain. There is no other scheme that will create such a hub airport. Therefore, contemplating a third runway is, we believe, the right thing to do. She asks whether the four new tests will have to be met in their entirety, and the answer is yes, they will. That is quite clear; it has been said from the beginning. We know what the tests are and the aspirants to build the third runway will have to meet them. We will also take the advice of the Climate Change Committee, to which the Secretary of State in the other place is about to write.

The noble Baroness makes the point about noise. One point that was also part of the Secretary of State’s Statement last week was establishing the UK Airspace Design Service in order to look at airspace design for the London region, supporting both Heathrow and the wider network, and also seeking to make flight paths more efficient so that planes spend less time over London, together with slot reform that maximises benefits at Heathrow and the other airports in the south-east of England.

On the noble Baroness’s comments about surface access, I was reading the letters sent to the two successful applicants, and she is right that they refer to construction of roads, but that is not to the exclusion of the rail access points that she refers to. Indeed, it is quite clear that aspirants to build the third runway will have to look at public transport connectivity to the airport. I think that is really important. She mentioned both the southern and western links and the future of the Heathrow Express, and it is quite clear to us that aspirants will have to reference those links and any others that they propose to put forward in order to have an acceptable policy for surface access to the airport.

The Government do not believe that they are misguided. They believe that they are setting out a coherent, speedy but sensible programme to establish the third runway.

19:59

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of InterTrade UK. I welcome the intent behind this Statement eventually to proceed with the third runway for Heathrow. Connectivity is so important, particularly for those of us who cannot take the train to London and need that connectivity through our hub airport. One of the work programmes for InterTrade UK is to look at UK connectivity to enable trade to work better across the United Kingdom. Can the Minister confirm that when this process proceeds, regional connectivity and the benefits that come with that, particularly for trade, will be at the forefront of His Majesty’s Government’s mind?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her contribution. In a very modest way, I have some background on the connectivity of the United Kingdom. It is of course the Government’s intention that a third runway would enable better connectivity to Heathrow from a variety of places within the United Kingdom. One of the difficulties with running an airport that is at 95% capacity and has been for a very long time is that this rather stifles internal connectivity for external international flights. The Government expect a third runway to facilitate more of that, so that there is more connectivity from various places within the United Kingdom to a lot of places outside it that can be accessed only from a hub airport.

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive comments. I have a special interest, as I worked out of Heathrow for 25 years. So I was at the sharp end of delays, and we definitely needed further runway capacity.

It is ironic that Heathrow was built over six runways. Over the decades they built on four with various terminals, and ended up with two. My criticism is for all sides and all Governments, because none were bold enough to look 25 years ago at building a third runway, notwithstanding that Heathrow is the major airport in the United Kingdom. It is not just about London.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, made a point about sustainability and the environment. This is a red herring, because so much has been stopped by these environmental arguments. Notwithstanding the aerospace sector, we build the cleanest, greenest aircraft on the planet. Aviation is responsible for 3% of CO₂ worldwide and approximately 4% across Europe, which does not mean to say that we always aim to improve these sorts of things, so that is rather a negative argument.

At present, the two runways are running at 98% capacity, and just a little fog or a delay sends things into a turmoil. So I support the Government’s decision to back the building of a third runway, and what we did before we lost power. It is tragic that these infrastructure projects are delayed. Notwithstanding that, I question the projected amount of money: £40 billion is ludicrous, and I am sure that businesses can come up with a far better figure.

The reason why we do not have a third runway is nothing to do with the Government Benches or the Conservative Party: the reason, and why we have the problems with Heathrow expansion, is because of the Liberal Democrats. The noble Baroness explained perfectly all the reasons why we should not have one; it really is not good enough in 2025.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords—oh, I am sorry.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Baroness could answer.

I am not entirely sure that there was a question in there, but I am old enough to remember flying from the ex-RAF huts on the north side of the airport, so I am sure that Heathrow did have six runways at that stage. If nobody was bold enough to advocate this 25 years ago, it is about time some Government got on with it, and this is the Government who are going to.

[Lord Cryer (Lab)]

My Lords, I understand the economic arguments for the expansion of Heathrow, and the connectivity arguments we just heard about. However, I want to address the issue of overflying, which was mentioned earlier.

I was a Member of the other place for a long time, always for an east London constituency. Throughout that time, I dealt with issues of overflying, largely to and from London City Airport but, to a surprising extent, to and from Heathrow. One of the problems was that the technology advanced in such a way that the flight patterns were narrowed. That meant that fewer homes were being overflown, but those that were had a much more intense time of it, and the misery of the noise was compounded.

My noble friend may not be able to answer this question now and may want to write to me, but can he say something about mitigating the noise factors? That might include using advanced aircraft, which we are always assured are going to be cleaner, greener and quieter. Whether or not that happens—the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, seems to be having an uncontrollable fit of the giggles—perhaps he could talk about that and how the technology might develop to mitigate the problem of overflying.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend; I will have to write to him because I am not a technology expert. All I will say—not in passing because it is a relevant factor—is that aircraft were far noisier 20 years ago than they are now. I realise that that does not mitigate against more of them, but part of this work is undoubtedly figuring out the best way of managing the airspace—for the benefit of landing and taking off, and of the communities underneath the planes. If I have anything useful to say about technology and noise, I will write to my noble friend.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I am aware that the Minister is not responsible for the detail of this Statement. None the less, in the first substantive paragraph there is a statement that I suggest requires correction:

“Britain wants to fly”.

A report published in June from the New Economics Foundation states that in the last 20 years, the number of passengers flying in and out of Britain has grown dramatically, from 220 million to 300 million. Of that increase, 63% is the result of UK frequent flyers and 24% the result of foreign residents, many of whom will also be frequent flyers. In the last 20 years, the number of UK residents not flying at all each year has increased. In terms of total flight numbers, ultra-frequent flyers—those taking six or more return flights each year—is less than 3% of the population, yet they make 30% of all the journeys taken by UK residents. Therefore, it is not the case that Britain wants to fly. A very small number of people want to fly very often, and they inflict the air pollution we have heard so much about, the noise pollution, the climate impacts and the associated traffic congestion, on all the people who are not flying.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I have no doubt that the noble Baroness has the right figures in front of her, but her conclusion is not necessarily correct. The purpose of this is economic growth. Supporting growth in the economy is the number one objective of this Government. In terms of who flies, her statistics suggest to me that there is real business traffic at an international hub airport and that constraining that will be a constraint on the economy of Britain, which is a wholly bad thing. Whether everybody else wants to fly for recreation and leisure purposes is very important, but even more important is that the economy is stimulated by those who need to travel, and that we have a hub airport big enough and flexible enough to cope with their demands.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a non-executive chair of an aviation company, albeit one that does not operate from Heathrow. I have a couple of points to make. I strongly support what the Government are trying to do in expanding Heathrow. I was very surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, did not mention any of the technology improvements, including to aircraft, sustainable aviation fuel, hydrogen fuel cells and all the technology that will enable us to fly in a way compatible with our climate obligations. She did not mention any of those things, nor did she mention the Elizabeth line, a fantastic, environmentally friendly solution to get enormous numbers of people to Heathrow. Lots of that progress is going in the right direction.

As we have heard, there are lots of people who absolutely do not want this to succeed and will use every tool so that it does not. My concern, notwithstanding what I have said about the compatibility of expanding Heathrow with our climate change obligations, is that I am convinced that when—as I hope—the Government make the right decision to expand Heathrow, there will be a judicial challenge on climate grounds. I want to know what the Government are doing, first to speed up the process of that challenge, but also to make sure that, ultimately, that challenge will fail and we can make sure that this very important hub airport—not just important for passengers but also incredibly important for the amount of freight that it moves in and out of the United Kingdom—is able to expand and benefit the people of the United Kingdom.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

There have been occasions on which I did not necessarily agree with the noble Lord in all his sentiments, but this time I do. He is right to raise things such as the development of aircraft technology, particularly sustainable aviation fuel, on which I hope he will support us when that Bill is considered in this House. He is right also to raise the Elizabeth line, because it makes a huge difference to connectivity to the airport, and he is right to refer to air freight. Heathrow is a principal hub for air freight, which is part of the economic benefit of having a hub airport.

In respect of the noble Lord’s question about a possible challenge, the Secretary of State in the other place said that we have announced that we are working with the judiciary to cut the amount of time it takes for a review to move through the court system, including for national policy statements and nationally significant infrastructure projects. Indeed, it is the Government’s intention to consider very carefully whether this should be designated a nationally significant infrastructure project, alongside others. We are considering that; the Secretary of State is seeking the views of the Climate Change Committee and we intend to do all that expeditiously, to proceed with this.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, on the freight issue, the noble Lord, Lord Harper, as a former Transport Secretary, will know that the primary freight exported out of Heathrow is fish. That is overwhelmingly the majority of the freight. Number two is books. The notion that there is high-value product going through the system is absolutely untrue. There is no need for additional capacity to provide that delivery. The numbers are official and can be looked up at any time.

The Minister supports the principle that a hub airport should forever expand to support economic prosperity and growth. That is not the history of aviation. There is a place for hub airports, but also for direct flights and the development of regional airports. There are many arguments that mean capacity can be delivered in many other ways, without necessarily continuously expanding a hub. Indeed, the numbers that the Government are using at the moment—I think consultants such as Frontier Economics have also been involved—to justify expansion at Heathrow are laying out not future demand but a highly speculative relationship between increased capacity and increased growth.

I am very concerned that the projections the Government are using are not even adjusted to deal with increased capacity at other London airports, never mind potential capacity at other regional airports around the country, and that we are getting into this vicious cycle of creating unneeded capacity which then leads to much more aggressive marketing to persuade more people to fly. It is almost equivalent to the utilities going out and trying to encourage people to use more energy or water. Capacity in the air is a scarce resource and we should be thinking from a far more environmental perspective. I suggest that the policy the Minister is looking at runs dangerously counter to tackling climate change. As for local environmental impact, especially noise, the policy continues to run counter. Although the industry tells us its planes are quieter, I—living under the flight path—can tell noble Lords that that is not the real lived experience under that flight path.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I hesitate to disagree with the noble Baroness because I have huge respect for her. To begin with, fish and books may or may not be valuable in themselves, though I suggest that they are probably more valuable if people air-freight them. The fact is that 72% of UK air freight by value goes through Heathrow, so if fish and books are the two principal exports through Heathrow, they must be valuable fish and valuable books. I cannot reconcile her claim that they are not valuable simply because they are the two highest categories, but the 72% figure is assured.

Moreover, nobody is suggesting that a hub airport should continuously expand for ever. We are looking here at an airport that has been at more than 95% capacity for the last 40 years. Successive Governments have sought a way of doing it, but it has not been done. It is clearly restraining the economy, and it is clearly right that a Government who seek to expand the economy look at a third runway with a view to doing something that has long been mooted. This is clearly restraining both air capacity and economic growth.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the Statement, and I believe that there is a consensus across the House for a position where Heathrow can achieve its full potential as not only a national and European hub but an international hub. I actually find myself agreeing with the Liberal Democrats to a certain extent that there has to be proper and due regard taken of infrastructure, rail and road, and that the economic footprint of Heathrow is not just Hillingdon, Hounslow, Ealing and Brent but reaches out to the wider south-east in terms of jobs, prosperity and enterprise.

I know the Minister has a lot on his plate, not least with HS2 and finding how to plug the gap between Euston and Old Oak Common, which we have discussed on a number of occasions, but I want to press him on judicial reviews. Cosy chats with the judiciary will not cut the mustard on this massive infrastructure project. The Climate Change Act is pretty draconian in respect of the potential for judicial reviews, and I have to press him on whether he envisages primary legislation in order to assist the prospect of this huge project not being clogged up by endless judicial reviews. He will know that even the Labour Mayor of London has said he is more than willing to use the current legislation to block the expansion of Heathrow Airport.

I will make one final, parochial point. This is a holistic airport policy. I come from the perspective of someone who often uses Stansted. To me, it is a national embarrassment that people from, say, California with lots of money to invest have to fly into Heathrow Airport on the way to Cambridge and are then stuck for two or three hours on the M25 until they can reach their corporate or European headquarters in Cambridge. We need more transcontinental flights to the United States and Canada into Stansted, not just Heathrow. That is a more parochial point, but the substantive point is that the Minister cannot wish for legal certainty—he has to do something about it.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Lord refers to rail connections, which we have already touched on in this debate, and it is quite clear that the two promoters of the schemes will have to address railway connections to Heathrow and not just from the London direction, good though the Elizabeth line is. He mentioned HS2 in passing; we have cracked Euston to Old Oak Common, at least, because the Government are going to fund the tunnelling machines and they will start fairly soon.

In respect of judicial challenges, but for this dinner break business we are considering the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and my noble friend is sitting next to me ready to resume those discussions. As she points out to me, sotto voce, a great deal of the Bill is, in fact, designed to smooth the process of major infrastructure, and that is the reason that this Government are moving forward with it.

Finally, the ANPS is about Heathrow; it has always been about Heathrow. That is not to say that there are not policies that should be applied to other London airports—Gatwick, Luton, Stansted and so forth—but Heathrow is such a big issue in itself and is, as I keep saying, the only hub airport in Britain. It is right that the ANPS should deal only with Heathrow, because it is a very important matter in itself.