(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The debate surrounding a third runway at Heathrow has stretched over the past three decades. The Liberal Democrats have long stood by communities who oppose a third runway, arguing that the economic benefits are overstated and the environmental consequences are unavoidable. Although I have always opposed a third runway at Heathrow, the current proposal could not have come at a worse time. The cost of expansion has doubled over the past 10 years, and the addition of nearly 300,000 more flights, which expansion implies, will make our net zero targets almost unachievable.
It is widely rumoured that even Heathrow Airport Ltd did not believe the timing of expansion to be practical. Despite that, on 29 January 2025, the Chancellor announced her support for a third runway to be built at Heathrow airport. This endorsement was the landmark announcement during her speech on growth; as such, it has a significant amount of political weight behind it. My plea to the Minister is that any decision taken on a third runway at Heathrow should be based on merit and unbiased data, not politics. The decision has an enormous impact on millions of lives, and it must be more than just a signal to investors to compensate for the Government’s economic mismanagement.
The Chancellor believes that expansion at Heathrow will produce economic growth. Nearly 18 months later, however, the Government have yet to produce their economic analysis to support that assertion, and the figures raised in the Chancellor’s speech on growth were drawn directly from an internal business case prepared for Heathrow airport and have not been independently verified.
The Department for Transport’s own updated appraisal report from 2017 shows that the net present value of a third runway ranges from just £3.3 billion to minus £2.2 billion. Now it has been admitted that even that figure is a generous estimate, as the DFT’s guidance suggests that international transfer passengers, who are estimated to make up 75% of a projected third runway’s capacity, do not contribute to the UK’s economy. When discounting those passengers, it is estimated that the net present value could be reduced by as much as a further £5.5 billion.
In addition, the New Economics Foundation asserts that twice as many people fly out of the UK than fly in, thus exporting more money out of our economy. An assessment of the impacts of inbound and outbound tourism flows is currently missing from the economic analysis of aviation’s contribution to the economy. Will the Minister provide reassurance that that research will be conducted and published with the airports national policy statement?
Heathrow Airport Ltd has cited that the cost of building a third runway will be an eyewatering £49 billion, before factoring in an estimated £100 billion in carbon abatement costs and at least £15 billion of investment on surface access upgrade improvements. Without that upgrade, there will be no way to deliver sufficient passengers to Heathrow to utilise the additional capacity and deliver the supposed economic benefits.
The Government have said that funding for a third runway at Heathrow will be privately financed. With Heathrow already drowning in over £15 billion-worth of debt, I am not convinced. I would therefore like to ask again, will the Minister provide reassurances that none of the costs associated with building a third runway at Heathrow will be pushed on to the taxpayer?
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate on an issue that matters to my constituents in Hillingdon, to her constituents and to many constituents across the west London area. As she rightly points out, there have been discussions about the third runway being privately financed, but as she has touched on, there are public sector burdens and costs too, including from the extra pressure on the Elizabeth line, because of the capacity that will be needed, and on the local road network. Does she agree that it is vital when looking at the economic case that possible public sector pressures are fully accounted for in the decision-making process? Does she agree that the Government’s four tests are absolutely vital, and that we need transparency about how those tests will be measured and assessed?
Sarah Olney
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we need to see the economic case and to look at it in the round—not just the specific costs associated with building the runway, but all the additional costs associated with operating it at capacity and all the impacts that that will have on Heathrow, along with the whole of London and the south-east.
The economic argument simply does not stand up to scrutiny, while the social and environmental consequences of a third runway are unavoidable. Communities would be severely impacted by the additional flights that a third runway would bring. It is expected that nearly 325,000 more people will fall within the Department for Transport’s “significantly affected” decibel level measurement. That does not even reference the increased bombardment of noise that houses already impacted by Heathrow’s flights are likely to experience. Not only would that noise disturbance affect people’s everyday lives, whether their sleeping pattern or their ability to work from home, it would have serious physical and mental health repercussions for local residents.
People living in communities surrounding Heathrow have a 24% higher chance of stroke, a 21% higher chance of heart disease and a 14% higher chance of cardiovascular disease compared with people exposed to low levels of aircraft noise. Will the Minister confirm how many people will be exposed to noise at 45 decibels, the level that the World Health Organisation estimates that health impacts begin? Will the Government commit to setting a minimum acceptable level of noise by which any expansion proposal can be judged? Will the Government also commit to ensuring that there is no increase in night flights? People deserve a full night of undisrupted sleep, and I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that the Government do not plan to approve anything that would mean more planes fly over households during night hours.
Yesterday, the Government outlined their plan to introduce the civil aviation Bill in this parliamentary Session. Will the Minister outline a timeline for the introduction of that Bill, and will he explain how the Government can provide communities with reassurances that a third runway will not bring new or extended disruptions when airspace changes are yet even to be drawn up?
On the environmental argument, it should almost go without saying that adding nearly 300,000 extra flights to our skies each year will have a profound impact on air pollution and climate change. This Government have used wishful thinking in their assertions that sustainable aviation fuel will mitigate the additional pollution from Heathrow expansion. They are yet to provide any evidence that shows how Heathrow can expand while complying with their legal air pollution limits.
International uncertainty over China’s introduction of their SAF mandate, which accounts for more than 90% of our imported SAF, and challenges to UK-US trade have meant that the UK’s SAF targets, which in themselves would not mitigate pollution from Heathrow expansion, are even more difficult to deliver. The challenges to the UK’s ability to produce and import SAF were underscored by the Climate Change Committee’s report last year, which estimated that only 17% of the UK’s aviation industry will use SAF by 2040. That is 5% lower than the Government’s mandated targets and 8% below the EU’s target. The estimate does not even take into account the additional flights that would come in and out of the UK as a result of the proposed airport expansion.
Heathrow is already the single biggest source of carbon emissions in the UK, and expansion will add an extra 8 megatonnes to 9 megatonnes of CO2 every year. The Climate Change Committee’s balanced pathway to net zero estimates that aviation will contribute 23 megatonnes of CO2 by 2050. A third runway at Heathrow would increase emissions at the airport alone to 20 megatonnes. Does the Minister still believe that the UK can be compliant with our net zero targets with the expansion of Heathrow airport?
This Government have repeated that they will honour and respect the Labour party’s four tests, as highlighted by the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales). They are: growth across the country, noise issues to be addressed, air quality to be protected and our climate change objectives to be met. They must be passed before expansion can be approved. As I have just laid out, I do not believe that any of those tests can be passed, let alone all four, but I ask that the Government honour the principle of the tests and do not attempt to circumvent them by using biased data.
I hope I have underlined the importance of this decision for our economy, environment and local communities. Moreover, I hope that this speech has impressed on the Government that this decision cannot move ahead solely on the basis of political expediency.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Has the hon. Member sought all the appropriate permissions?
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), who is my constituency neighbour, and congratulate her on securing this important debate, on her excellent speech and on giving me permission to make a speech. I also thank the Minister for allowing me to speak today.
My hon. Friend has clearly laid out the key questions that Ministers need to address in approving a third runway at Heathrow, which we have heard publicly today. I am also grateful to the Minister for having previously met my hon. Friend and I when we set out a number of those questions privately to him.
As my hon. Friend has already said, in the King’s Speech yesterday the Government set out that
“Legislation will be introduced to unlock the benefits of airport expansion”.
I and many people, not least my constituents, are asking, “What benefits?” The truth is, as my hon. Friend has eloquently set out, the Government have provided precious little evidence to support their far-reaching claims of the economic benefits of a third runway at Heathrow. Many of us can only see costs, be they financial, environmental or to health.
It is obvious that the Government’s expansion of Heathrow—not just Heathrow, but London City, Stansted, Gatwick and Luton—will have a significant impact on this country’s climate commitments. When I and other hon. Members have raised such concerns in the House, Ministers’ answers revert to sustainable aviation fuel every time. However, the reality is that SAF is not a silver bullet. As my hon. Friend has suggested, the Government’s expectation is for SAF to meet 22% of aviation fuel demand by 2040, while the Climate Change Committee’s prediction is just 17%. That will not be enough to make up for the 8 megatonnes to 9 megatonnes of carbon emissions as a result of expansion. The Environmental Audit Committee has warned that by putting all our eggs in this basket, the Government’s delivery on carbon budgets and net zero is “in serious jeopardy”.
We must not lose sight of the human cost at the heart of this debate. Some 2.2 million people would suffer from an increase in noise pollution by 2050. Working people will see air pollution increase from congestion on the roads as the M25 is diverted for years—not to mention the permanent increase in traffic to the airport—and from thousands more flights over a very densely populated area, all pumping noxious fumes into our environment. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park has set out clearly the resulting health impacts.
Over the past 15 months, I, like my hon. Friend and a number of others, have asked this Minister, his predecessor, the Chancellor, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Transport Secretary about the funding behind expansion. They all insist that taxpayers’ money will not be used to fund expansion of Heathrow, but frankly, that is hard to believe, given the unsustainable financial circumstances of Heathrow airport and the eye-watering, ever rising costs of a third runway. As we have heard, Heathrow itself has suggested that its expansion will cost £49 billion, but other estimates are much higher, and this country’s track record of delivering infrastructure on time and on budget is not exactly promising.
At the same time, Heathrow is beginning to resemble another financial omnishambles: Thames Water. Both have significant debt and are spending massive amounts of money on infrastructure while jacking up prices for bill payers—or, in this case, those taking flights—knowing that the Government are ultimately there to bail them out if it all goes wrong. Let us make no mistake: taxpayers will be expected to foot part of the bill, and hard-pressed families and businesses will be forced to pay more for holidays and business trips through higher fares to fund the higher landing charges, as even airlines have warned.
We deserve transparency and accountability from this Government, but at the moment we are getting neither. This Government are delaying publication of vital evidence, such as the aviation night noise effects and aviation noise attitude studies, when we know they have been sitting on the Minister’s desk for months. The Minister has been far from clear on whether this House will have the chance to scrutinise the ANPS properly, which means a debate and a vote. I very much hope he will address those questions head-on today.
Back in January 2025, the Chancellor staked her “growth credentials” on this huge project. This kind of infrastructure project needs both economic credibility and economic and political stability. We cannot have another HS2, where half the project gets cancelled a decade down the line—too much is at risk. With the week we have just had, I cannot see how this Chancellor and this Government can seriously be trusted to see through a project that could take a decade or more to build. The Minister must follow the evidence and put a stop to this expansion before it is too late, for the sake of taxpayers, for the sake of our local communities and for the sake of our environment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this incredibly important debate, and I thank the Members in attendance, in particular the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing the debate. We have engaged on this topic before, and I would welcome any further engagement in the build-up to and following the publication of the draft amended ANPS.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I am very grateful for the Minister’s commitment to engagement. Right now, there is traffic chaos in the Egham and Pooley Green area. I am opposed to the third runway. It will make the transport situation in the north of my constituency worse, and it will cause problems of increased noise and air pollution. Will he engage with our local communities, so that he can hear from them how much we do not want it?
Keir Mather
I would be very pleased to engage with the hon. Member and, perhaps through him, with the community groups that he points to. It is important to say that the ANPS review will consider the elements of the existing ANPS that relate to surface access proposals. That includes mode share targets and measures to minimise and mitigate the effects of expansion on existing surface access arrangements. I would be happy to speak about that with him and his constituents.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
The Minister is making a really important point about the importance of surface access. He will know, because I have pressed him on this before, how important I think it is that we get better rail access to Heathrow, regardless of whether there is a third runway. Heathrow has committed to looking at both a western rail link and, importantly for my constituents in Bracknell, a southern rail link. Would he like to see those plans go ahead? Will he press Heathrow to make sure that they are part of any proposals, and will he do everything he can to deliver better rail access for my constituents?
Keir Mather
As part of the ANPS process, we are going to consider the Government’s strategic objectives for surface access, including public transport mode share targets. Any expansion at Heathrow will be tested against the public transport mode share targets set out in the ANPS, and rail will form an important part of those considerations. I would be happy to have further conversations with my hon. Friend about how his constituents may be affected by any expansion and mitigations in that space, although I do not wish to pre-empt any of the outcomes of the ANPS review.
Heathrow expansion and, in turn, a third runway at Heathrow airport would have a transformative impact. It is essential, as hon. Members have outlined, that the Government get this process right, taking full account of all views and ensuring adequate and full scrutiny. The Government recognise that air connectivity plays a vital role in supporting economic growth across the country, with the air transport and aerospace sectors contributing £23 billion to our GDP and 240,000 jobs across the United Kingdom in 2023.
Dr Spencer
Notwithstanding my points about the third runway, the success of Heathrow is incredibly important to my constituents in providing jobs and economic activity locally. Will the Minister update us on the Government’s response to the concerns about kerosene supply, which impacts Heathrow and our economy?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I hesitate to even raise this, but in case the Minister is anxious about time, we can—fortunately or unfortunately—run to 5.30 pm.
Keir Mather
Fortunately, Madam Deputy Speaker—come on!
The hon. Member is right to say that the economic activity and jobs created by Heathrow airport are dependent on international supply chains, and I know his constituents will be looking with concern at what is happening in the middle east. The Department for Transport is engaging very closely with both our refineries and the aviation sector to ensure we have security of aviation fuel supply. That work is ongoing, and we are confident that, working closely with those stakeholders, we can ensure that the impacts of the crisis in the middle east are sufficiently mitigated. I know how important that will be to his constituents.
Capacity constraints are hindering further growth in our aviation sector. Heathrow airport, as the UK’s busiest airport and only hub airport, plays a critical role in enabling international connectivity for both passengers and freight: 73% of UK long-haul flights go from Heathrow and 72% of UK international air freight by value goes through the airport. The decision about a third runway at Heathrow has been ducked and delayed for decades, which has resulted in the capacity of the UK’s only hub airport being constrained. That has had a material impact on Heathrow, with the airport operating at over 95% capacity for most of the past two decades.
Our ambition, as set out by the Chancellor, is clear: it is to enable delivery of an operational third runway at Heathrow by 2035. Better connections and a third runway have the potential to boost the UK economy and support thousands of jobs. Businesses, and business groups such as the Federation of Small Businesses, the British Chambers of Commerce and regional chambers across the country, are clear in their support for Heathrow expansion, as are major trade unions. The Government have been clear that any Heathrow expansion proposal needs to demonstrate that it can contribute to economic growth, be delivered in line with the UK’s legally binding climate change commitments and meet strict environmental requirements on air quality and noise pollution.
As hon. Members will be aware, last October my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced that the ANPS, which is the Government’s policy framework for additional runway capacity at Heathrow airport, would be reviewed to reflect changes in legislation, policy and data, and to ensure that any proposed scheme meets the Government’s four tests—on economic growth, climate change, air quality and noise—for expansion at Heathrow. The ANPS provides the basis for decision making on granting development consent for a new runway. Any scheme must be delivered in line with the UK’s legal, climate and environmental obligations.
In November, the Government announced that the north-west runway scheme, put forward by Heathrow Airport Ltd, will be used to inform the review of the ANPS. However, once the Government have reviewed the ANPS, and depending on the outcome of the review, any applicant, also known as a promoter, can submit a proposal through the development consent order process.
It is for scheme promoters to decide when to submit any DCO application for a third runway scheme, and any promoter may submit a proposal for development consent. It is at that stage of the planning process when the precise impact of Heathrow would be considered. Any DCO application to build a third runway would go through a strict and independent process. It would be examined by the Planning Inspectorate. The Secretary of State for Transport would then make a final decision on whether to grant consent.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. He is being very generous with his time—although, as Madam Deputy Speaker pointed out, we have quite a lot of it. The UK Government used to have a golden share in Heathrow airport. However, that was ruled illegal by the European Court of Justice in 2003. Given that the Government broadly want the same thing as any promoter might want, inasmuch as they want Heathrow expansion, that would suggest that the Government are at the point of maximum influence in this build-up phase. Post-Brexit, will the Minister consider making any progress with the third runway conditional on the British Government getting back their golden share, so that we can control a great deal more of what goes on at Heathrow at Government level?
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. If he does not mind my saying so, I think he may have a slightly over-inflated expectation of my powers as a junior Minister in the Department for Transport to compel a change in Heathrow airport’s ownership structure. What I am pleased to say is that there is broad support for the principle of expansion, irrespective of the fact that the Government have set this as a key priority to generate growth and prosperity in the United Kingdom. I will certainly take his suggestion on board, but I am pleased to say that I think the onus is there to ensure that the project is realised, irrespective of the ownership model that may exist.
To turn back briefly to the DCO process, the Government are working at pace to ensure that the ANPS constitutes a robust framework under which any successful promoter must meet the four tests and the requirements under the Planning Act 2008—a position we have consistently maintained since the Government’s initial announcement in support of expansion last year.
I would like to touch on some of the general points raised during the debate on the potential impact of Heathrow expansion, but two small points of detail were originally raised that I would like to address first. First, on the introduction of a civil aviation Bill, the Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill is a Lords Bill and I am pleased to confirm that it was introduced today. Secondly, on the principle of night flights, the hon. Member for Richmond Park will know that the current night flight restrictions at Heathrow are in place until 2028, but we intend to consult next year on proposals for the period that follows.
Although the ANPS review is ongoing and limits what can be said in detail at this stage, I want to reassure the House that both Parliament and constituents will have the formal opportunity to engage when the amended draft ANPS is published for consultation and undergoes parliamentary scrutiny.
Heathrow expansion is a private sector project and the Government have been clear that it must be privately financed. Taxpayers will not bear the cost of expansion. The Government are working with the Civil Aviation Authority to ensure that flying out of Heathrow will be affordable and that any increases to fares during expansion are minimised. Protecting the interests of consumers is the CAA’s priority and keeping costs affordable will always be a part of the CAA’s considerations.
Munira Wilson
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. Just before he got on to the cost point, he confirmed that the ANPS will receive parliamentary scrutiny. Can he clarify for the House whether that means a debate and a vote on the Floor of the House?
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. Once the ANPS is laid in Parliament, there is a 21 sitting day consideration period during which the House of Commons can resolve that a vote can be called on whether to approve the ANPS. There is also the important principle of Select Committee scrutiny. It is for the Liaison Committee, I believe, to determine which Committee is most appropriate to take forward Select Committee-level analysis of the implications of the ANPS, and to take oral evidence and so on. That process is all to come and will be folded into a robust process of parliamentary scrutiny that the Government fully support taking place through the Select Committee process.
It is our view that expansion could inject billions into our economy, support thousands of apprenticeships, and strengthen Heathrow’s status as a global passenger and airfreight hub. It should also deliver major benefits for passengers, including reduced delays and, ultimately, lower fares when compared with a world where Heathrow does not expand. The Government have been clear that any Heathrow expansion needs to demonstrate that it can contribute to economic growth, and as part of the ANPS review the Department is developing analysis on the economic impacts of Heathrow expansion, the outcome of which will be published for consultation alongside the outcome of the ANPS review.
On the matter of climate commitments, the Government are clear that Heathrow expansion must align with our climate obligations. That is something that the Government remain absolutely committed to. The increasing carbon emissions associated with Heathrow do not in themselves mean that airport expansion cannot take place; the important point is that the Government remain able to meet their carbon reduction targets in the round. Economy-wide net zero and carbon budgets mean that even if emissions rise in one area, such as aviation, they must be fully balanced by either further carbon savings or high-quality and permanent greenhouse gas removals elsewhere.
The Government published their plan for delivering carbon budgets 4 to 6 on 29 October 2025, including on aviation, and we will be legislating for the carbon budget 7 target shortly. The current ANPS sets expectations on measures to mitigate the carbon impact of expansion at Heathrow, and those mitigations are being considered as part of the ANPS review.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) mentioned commitments around noise, which are incredibly important. We recognise the concern among communities that a new runway has the potential to cause an increase in noise. The current ANPS provides clear requirements on noise mitigation that any scheme should meet. That includes a scheduled night flight ban of 6.5 hours, between the hours of 11 pm and 7 am, a runway alternation scheme that provides affected communities with predictable periods of respite, and a noise envelope with clear noise performance targets that we will review as part of the ANPS.
On the two studies that the hon. Member for Twickenham referenced, I can confirm that they will be both be published shortly, and that hon. Members will be able to consider them fully alongside the ANPS process. There will be full transparency on the Government’s work to understand the impact of noise on both her constituents and people who live in proximity of airports across the country. We will consider those and other mitigations as part of the ANPS review.
On a separate note, Heathrow expansion could also make it easier for aircraft to land without extensive holding patterns, bringing some noise and carbon benefits. The review of the ANPS will consider whether any change is required to the noise impacts and mitigations set out in the original document.
The Government have consistently made it clear that air quality obligations must be met. The current ANPS sets out clear air quality requirements, and as part of the ongoing review of the ANPS we will consider whether any changes are required to the air quality impacts and mitigation measures contained within it.
Turning to the important reference that my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) made to surface access, how people get to and from Heathrow airport is vitally important, and will be a key consideration as part of any plans for expansion. Plans must look to mitigate the impact on local and national transport networks. As part of the ANPS review we are considering the Government’s strategic objectives for surface access, including public transport mode share targets and measures to minimise and mitigate the effect of expansion on existing surface access arrangements.
Any promoter that wants to deliver expansion will need to model the impact of expansion on roads around the airport, including the M25, as part of their application, and consult with National Highways on their plans. As I previously mentioned, Heathrow expansion will be financed through private funding. That includes surface access improvements necessary for the expanded airport, including potential rail links.
To touch briefly on the matter of parliamentary scrutiny, it is imperative that we listen carefully to everyone’s views on this transformative and landmark piece of infrastructure. Its impact will be felt for decades to come, and it has the potential to unlock significant economic benefits that could be felt across the United Kingdom. However, we fully recognise that there will be communities who have understandable concerns about what this could mean for them, and that is why the Government are launching a formal consultation on the drafted ANPS by the summer.
Peter Swallow
I want to push the Minister on mitigations around surface access. This is an opportunity not just to mitigate concerns about existing surface access arrangements, but to massively improve those arrangements. He will be aware that across a large swathe of the south of England, there is effectively no way to get to the airport apart from driving. Through this process we have an opportunity not just to mitigate concerns, but to boost and upgrade public transport networks to get to Heathrow airport.
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend makes a fair challenge. He is right to say that the ANPS review and the consultation on it is an opportunity for us to look at some of these questions again and to consider how, with Heathrow continuing to offer its unique opportunity to the United Kingdom’s economy as our only international hub airport, we can facilitate better access for the communities surrounding it, both for the economic opportunities for employment and for people across the United Kingdom to fly and enjoy holidays with their families. He raises an important matter.
Dr Ben Spencer
I invite the Minister to Egham as part of his engagement on looking at surface access, where he will be able to see the carnage caused by the level crossings and the benefits of removing the level crossings and having a direct rail link from Egham to Heathrow. While he is there, he will probably also be able to hear the planes overhead and see the impact the noise is already having on that community.
Keir Mather
If the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me setting out the terms of his invitation, I would be very grateful and happy to consider them. It would be great to visit his constituency.
As His Majesty noted yesterday, the Government are bringing forward the civil aviation Bill, which will ensure that the UK’s aviation sector remains competitive, resilient and fair so that it can continue to drive economic growth while delivering better outcomes for passengers. The Bill will also strengthen consumer rights and protections, promote economic growth and infrastructure provision and enhance aviation safety, supporting our world-leading aviation sector to continue thriving for decades to come.
I thank all Members for their robust scrutiny, both of me and of the measures that underpin our review of the airports national policy statement and the principle of Heathrow expansion overall. On a serious note, I encourage them to engage with us further on these matters. I understand that they have a lot of questions to answer from concerned constituents who want an explanation of how best they can participate in the consultation process for the future of their local communities, so I encourage them to reach out to me. I would be happy to discuss this further to arrange it accordingly. I thank hon. Members for their contributions.
Question put and agreed to.