Heathrow Airport Expansion
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Heathrow airport expansion.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John, and I thank all my constituents in Putney who have written to me, attended public meetings and taken part in the recent consultation on Heathrow expansion. I am really grateful to have secured today’s debate, and for the opportunity to explain why the Mayor of London, so many London MPs and so many Londoners continue to oppose the enormous expansion of Heathrow, the third runway and all that comes with it. I am also grateful to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Aviation for engaging with the concerns that I and many others have raised.
The proposal on the table would significantly and adversely affect the health and wellbeing of 3 million people living near Heathrow, and there would be a 58% increase in flights. Under the expansion proposal, the number of flights would increase by 276,000 per year— 756 per day. This debate comes at an important moment in the decision-making process. It is only weeks since the Government’s consultation on the draft Heathrow expansion national policy statement closed on 1 September, and we are only days before Heathrow launches its own consultation on its expansion plans on 27 October. However, Heathrow is consulting on expansion before the Government have completed the policy framework that would govern it. That is the wrong way round.
Before taking a decision of such magnitude, we should ask a simple question: knowing what we know now, would Parliament make the same decision today as it was asked to make when the Airport Commission reported and made the proposal in 2015? I do not believe that it would. In 2015, the Airport Commission’s case rested on assumptions about jobs, growth, aviation demand, sustainable aviation fuel, carbon reduction and regional economic benefits, but many of those assumptions have now been blown apart and look considerably weaker, so I am going to whizz through eight major things that have changed since 2015. I will also talk about three important things that have not changed since then.
First, I am going to focus on the major central justification for expansion: the economic case, which I believe has collapsed. The Government’s own figures tell a very different story from the one we were told a decade ago. In 2015, the Airports Commission estimated that expansion could boost GDP by £20 billion to £23 billion. Earlier this year, supporters of expansion were still citing figures of around £13 billion. However, the Department for Transport’s appraisal in the HENPS document estimates a GDP increase of just 0.03% to 0.05% by the 2050s—the equivalent of roughly £900 million to £1.5 billion over decades. The headline economic benefit used to justify Heathrow expansion has therefore fallen from £20 billion to perhaps little more than £1 billion. A project once sold as transformational would now deliver an impact that is barely measurable in the context of a £3 trillion economy. Those figures would raise serious questions for any major infrastructure project.
Secondly, I will talk about jobs. In 2015, the Airports Commission argued that a third runway could support about 70,000 new jobs across the UK by 2050, yet the Government’s own analysis suggests that many jobs would be relocated, rather than created. The DFT estimates that Heathrow expansion could draw around 21,400 jobs into the Heathrow area while contributing to the loss of approximately 15,200 jobs elsewhere in the UK. Moving jobs from one region to another is obviously not the same as creating new jobs.
Thirdly, the premise of spreading growth across the UK has changed. The Government cannot demonstrate that the growth generated would be genuinely additional. If jobs, passengers and investment are simply drawn from other airports and regions, Britain is not creating growth; it is just relocating it. Analysis by the New Economics Foundation suggests that Birmingham airport alone could lose around 7.5 million passengers annually by 2050, alongside approximately 9,500 jobs across the airport and its supply chains.
On devolution, No.10 North is going in one direction, but Heathrow expansion—being so concentrated on London and the south-east—would take us in another direction. At a time when Ministers rightly want to spread opportunity more evenly across the country, Heathrow expansion risks doing precisely the opposite.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a really powerful point. When he was the Mayor of Manchester, the Prime Minister warned many times that Heathrow expansion would suck the life out of regional airports. Does she agree that that is now more true than ever? The Prime Minister is also really into devolution. The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, is also against Heathrow expansion, so the Prime Minister should listen to our Mayor, too.
Fleur Anderson
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The context of this debate has changed, which is my point; things have changed since 2015. We are looking again at devolution and growth across the country, and that changed context means that Heathrow expansion really needs to be looked at again, especially when the Mayor of London opposes it so strongly.
Fourthly, business travel has changed; the world that originally produced the case for the third runway no longer exists. Much of the demand modelling that was made then assumed ever-increasing business travel, but the pandemic accelerated a shift towards remote working and video conferencing, which has become permanent. Research highlighted by the New Economics Foundation shows that over the two decades before the pandemic, UK GDP grew by around 25% while business passenger numbers through UK airports showed virtually no growth at all. Today, business travel remains at a level that is about 20% below pre-pandemic levels, so the fundamental assumption about business travel no longer applies.
Fifthly, assumptions about sustainable aviation fuel have also changed. Sustainable aviation fuel was meant to be the great white charger that would come galloping over the hills, and that we would all be using it, and it would be the answer to all our climate problems. However, use of it is far less than predicted and is growing more slowly than predicted. It still accounts for far less than 1% of global aviation fuel use, and even under the Government’s own plans, around 90% of aviation fuel being used in 2030 would still be conventional fuel. In effect, Parliament is being asked to approve additional emissions now on the basis that future technology might solve the problem some time later, but that hope is really not being borne out.
Sixthly, the climate challenge has become far more acute. The Climate Change Committee’s conclusion in its report last month was clear—the UK does not currently have a credible pathway to reduce aviation emissions in line with net zero while accommodating Heathrow expansion. The Committee estimates that expansion would add an additional 2.4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide every year by 2050. That is roughly the equivalent of putting around half a million additional petrol-fuelled cars on Britain’s roads, all the emissions of Denmark, and greater than all the emissions of New Zealand.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
When I was first elected to Parliament nine years ago, we had people coming in and saying that new technology in aviation—electric planes, hydrogen planes and SAF—would significantly reduce emissions by 2025; I think that was the date given. None of that has happened. So all these assumptions are being made about new technology, which has not arrived and will not arrive. And we will break through our carbon budget just with increased aviation, particularly if we go ahead with a third runway at Heathrow. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Fleur Anderson
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend and I thank him for that intervention, which speaks for the views of so many people, who are saying similar things. Indeed, a long time ago they were saying, “Look at the assumptions”, but now we have even more facts about those assumptions. We know what has actually come to pass and it is not all that was promised. At a time when households, motorists and businesses are being asked to reduce emissions, and after the summer of extreme weather that we have just had, why would we seek permission to increase emissions by so much?
Seventhly, our understanding of the health impact of noise has changed. Noise is not just an inconvenience; it is not something for people to get used to. We now know the impact of noise on many health conditions, including heart conditions and mental health conditions. This new knowledge about the impact of noise and what that impact will be on so many millions more people really should give the Government pause for thought. At the very least, the Government should commit to a full seven-hour night-flight ban between 11 pm and 6 am, with a pathway towards an eight-hour ban in the future. That respite would be so important for my constituents.
Eighthly, our expectations on air quality have changed. London is now the world’s largest clean-air zone. Putney’s high street used to be one of the most polluted in the country, but is now just the same as other high streets. That has been through a lot of hard policy and hard work. The ultra low emission zone covers every London borough and has reduced harmful nitrogen dioxide concentrations in central London by more than 50%. There has been heavy investment around improving our air quality, but this pollution from Heathrow airport would take us in the other direction.
Those are eight things that have changed since 2015, and I am sure that the Minister has listened very carefully to them all, but there are three things that have not changed. First, there is no funding plan for the surface transport to go along with the airport. I have been asking this question of Treasury Ministers ever since the proposals came out: “Will the Government fund the ground transport?” No. I have been asking Heathrow, “Will Heathrow fund the ground transport?” No, it will not. We have a massive gap here given the number of people who will travel to Heathrow airport. What will they travel on? I think that that will be a real millstone around the Government’s neck in future.
The second thing that has not changed is that Heathrow is the wrong location for a hub airport of this scale, for areas such as Northern Ireland—I know that we have a Member from Northern Ireland here—Liverpool, Manchester or Scotland. If anyone looked at the UK to decide where to put a hub airport, would they really put it next to one of the most densely populated parts of the whole country, or would they put it in the middle of the country? Would they locate it at an airport that already had two runways, such as Manchester’s?
The third thing that has not changed is that we do not have a national aviation strategy. Why are these decisions being made piecemeal? We have Gatwick, Luton and now Heathrow; where is the overall strategy for this? What is the decision-making behind it? Why do we not step back, look at what kind of aviation growth we want and need and where we want that to be, and then put this decision within that?
When the Airports Commission recommended Heathrow’s expansion in 2015, it asked the public and Parliament to accept a trade-off: to accept the noise, the environmental impacts and the disruption, because the rewards would be worth it. We were promised transformational economic growth across the United Kingdom, but, more than a decade later, we find a very different situation. Those foundations and assumptions are very weak. The projected economic gains are smaller than promised.
Alex Sobel
One concerning point that my hon. Friend did not raise is the number of houses that will be demolished and the number of people who will be displaced. Heathrow’s own assumption is fewer than 1,000, but that is really only the direct curtilage of the runway. Even a quite casual look at a map would show that the uninhabitable zone around Heathrow could be north of 5,000 homes.
Who would pay for those demolitions, and for the replacements and compensation for those homeowners? That is something, alongside ground transport, that nobody is willing to pay for. That is an exceedingly large amount of money, on top of the misery caused for all those people living there.
Fleur Anderson
I absolutely have all those communities in my mind. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I am sure that we will hear more about that from other Members in this Chamber today who represent those communities that will be so directly affected.
That is what I mean about the national strategy; that would be a very big factor. How many communities will be affected? What is the trade-off here? Why—again—would anyone choose to put this hub airport next to London? It affects more people than all the other major hub airports across Europe. Five hub airports there have fewer people affected than this one, because it is so close to London. It is not in the place we would put it if we started from scratch.
As I was saying, Parliament was asked to accept a trade-off between the negative effects and the economic gains, but that whole equation has now crumbled. This is no longer the proposition that Parliament was presented with in 2015; it asks communities to accept many more dangers and harms, but for less-certain benefits.
Every day, my constituents live with the consequences of Heathrow. Asking them to accept more flights, more noise and more disruption requires a compelling national case, and we just do not have it here. If the growth is smaller, the jobs are less certain and the benefits are less widely shared than promised, the responsible thing to do is not to simply press ahead regardless; it is to stop and look again. I therefore hope that, when the time for a conclusion comes, the Minister will conclude that a third runway at Heathrow is not right for the country.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for setting the scene. She and I are good friends. I spoke to her before the debate; we have a difference of opinion on this issue, and I will outline the reasons why. I respect everybody else’s point of view, and I hope that others will respect mine.
The proposed expansion of Heathrow airport is expected to support some 108,000 jobs across the United Kingdom, making it a significant source of economic growth. The third runway would increase capacity, provide for more affordable travel and increase the reliability of flights. Across the UK, airports are recognising the need to plan ahead. I want to give some figures, ever mindful of how much I respect the opinion of the hon. Lady and other Members. Heathrow is the UK’s gateway to growth: it connects people and businesses from all parts of the country, including Belfast, to global opportunities, and it serves as the UK’s only hub airport.
The challenge is that Heathrow is operating at 99% capacity and has been for decades, which is why the third runway is imperative for the growth of this country. Indeed, it is bursting to grow. Heathrow continues to perform strongly, but passenger growth is now trailing the European average. Passenger growth at Heathrow is 1.9%, whereas the European average is 4.6%. Heathrow’s expansion is expected to add some £17 billion annually to the UK economy, and 60% of the economic benefits will occur outside London and the south-east. That is the reason why I am speaking in this debate as an MP for Northern Ireland: I want to put forward the case for how the third runway will benefit us in Northern Ireland. Whenever it comes to the Government here doing something centrally, it has to be for everybody’s advantage across this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The £33 billion of private investment into Britain supports jobs, exports, manufacturing and economic growth at no cost to the taxpayer, so it is advantageous. The benefits begin well before the first flight, and the wider economic prize goes beyond conventional transport modelling. Heathrow’s expansion builds on an existing 1,100-business UK supply chain, creating opportunities for companies in every region of the country. By way of example, I mention Zaun in Wolverhampton, but there are many other companies across the United Kingdom that rely on Heathrow’s connectivity, including Durham-based Coltraco Ultrasonics.
For us in Northern Ireland, it is really important that we have the connectivity. Heathrow has stated:
“this is not a choice between the economy and the environment; it will deliver for both.”
If it can show that expansion can do that, that is something that must be considered. Heathrow has also said there was a 7.5% carbon reduction in air emissions last year compared with 2019. That is factual evidence. There has also been a 60% reduction to the noise footprint since the early 1990s. Again, I would say that that shows that there has been a commitment in relation to that.
Jim Shannon
As always, the hon. Lady makes a very helpful intervention. I would suggest that those who are looking at the expansion of the third runway at Heathrow have indicated that those are issues that they can address. We must give them the chance to do just that.
In Northern Ireland, plans have been proposed to increase the capacity of Belfast City airport, because we want to see growth in Belfast. It is the airport I normally use; others may use Belfast International airport. There is an opportunity. In discussions, an indication has been made to my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and I know that growth in Belfast is helped by, connected with and part of the third runway at Heathrow.
The Minister is betwixt a rock and a hard place on this one, I suspect, but does he agree that we have to have a forward-thinking approach and support the infrastructure needed for future air travel? We are trying to increase connectivity, such as between Heathrow and Belfast. I see the hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) is present, and he has ambitions for Doncaster airport as well.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
Yesterday we had the amazing news that agreement had been reached to bring Doncaster Sheffield airport back into local public ownership. That will create jobs and growth and will be amazing for our area, in particular for NEETs—those not in education, employment or training—and their challenges. It will give opportunities for cabin crew, ground staff and, potentially, pilots in the future. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when we talk about expansion of Heathrow, we must also consider the importance of the regional hubs and regional airports as we go forward and as part of a strategy?
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman deserves some of the credit for his hard work in the time that he has been in this House on a way forward for Doncaster airport. He can take some credit, because it has been one of his primary objectives.
We must build for the future. We must support economic growth in the UK as a whole, as the hon. Gentleman just said, and no time is better to invest in such projects than right now. Heathrow airport expansion is not just a London issue; it is a vital national infrastructure project that is critical to strengthening our entire Union, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I want to promote that, concentrate on it and help it to happen.
The London-to-Belfast corridor is among the busiest domestic routes in the United Kingdom, yet our businesses and families face constant, crippling flight cancellations and slot constraints that isolate Northern Ireland from global markets. Our hope is that the third runway at Heathrow happens, along with the expansion of Belfast City airport, so that the two can grow together and provide for our businesses and families. Without any doubt, a third runway is urgently required to guarantee and protect vital regional slots for Northern Ireland, for Scotland, for Wales and for Doncaster, to ensure that every single corner of the United Kingdom benefits from global connectivity.
I will finish with this: the third runway will ensure connectivity throughout the UK, and it is essential that that is a material consideration. Often Heathrow expansion is talked about in terms of more holiday routes, but it is not just holiday routes; there are domestic connections as well, such as from Belfast City to London. Those who want to go further can take the holiday routes, and they are important, but for businesses based in Northern Ireland, reliable connections from London to Belfast are their lifeblood. We cannot afford to be cut off. For that reason, I say respectfully to right hon. and hon. Members in the Chamber that I support the Heathrow extension. It will be beneficial for Northern Ireland. I see advantages—coming through jobs and opportunities for connection—to build this United Kingdom where there is the ability to grow it. I support this and I put the needs of Northern Ireland very much before all hon. Members present for their consideration.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I almost feel like just republishing a Hansard of one of the dozen debates we have already had on this subject over the past number of years. We just need to get real. The reason we are having this debate is that the former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves), when developing a speech for growth, wanted an example, and she just went for the third runway. At the moment, however, I cannot find anyone in Government who privately thinks, seriously, that it will go ahead. That is where we are at. This is the “Monty Python” dead parrot sketch all over again.
Given that we are having this debate, I will remind people, as I always do, what the third runway means in human terms for my constituents, because that is my job. This has been mentioned, but 4,500 homes will be demolished or rendered unliveable by noise and air pollution. We think now that 17,000 people will be displaced to ensure the profits of a company owned by a whole range of foreign multinationals. A number of schools will be closed. I held my first third runway meeting and set up the third runway action group in 1983, in Harlington school. We had to demolish and rebuild that school elsewhere because the noise and air pollution had made it impossible to teach in. This expansion will push the runway near to the school that we built some distance away. We are going to lose our schools. We are going to lose our whole community.
Before anyone votes on this issue, come down to Harmondsworth. Come and see the village. Members should not vote on this unless they have been there, because otherwise they will not know how this is devastating beautiful villages. Harmondsworth has just won London in Bloom. We have a church that is 1,000 years old; the barn of the medieval church, which we believe is the biggest in Europe, will be 50 yards from the airport runway. This is absolute devastation. Where are my constituents going to go? Where are school pupils going to be taught?
On top of that, we have been breathing this poisoned air for more than a generation now. We have done survey after survey about the scale of respiratory problems and the cardiovascular impacts. Before anyone votes, come down there and talk to some of the people about what it means. People say, “Oh well, people will move.” We have generations of families who have lived there, and young families who have moved in. Why? Because Governments promised us that there will be no third runway. At one point in time, there was cross-party agreement. No wonder we feel betrayed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) has set out all the arguments. The fact that we are even considering this issue in this debate is a monument to Heathrow’s lobbying capacity and the corporate capture of different political parties over time. I have a lot of time for the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—he is generous with his support on a whole range of issues—but every one of the points that he raised, which are basically from the Heathrow briefing material, has been shot through completely.
My hon. Friend the Member for Putney mentioned the economic benefit. In the Government’s own figures in the consultation, that has reduced 10 times, to 0.05% of GDP, and even that is now in doubt. On the number of jobs, when the fifth terminal was developed, we were promised, I think, 50,000 jobs. We did not get anything. What has happened in our area of west London is that as Heathrow has developed, our industrial base has moved out, gone to other, cheaper regions. What have they been replaced by? Warehousing. We have lost skilled jobs and got unskilled work and exploitation.
On the wider health implications, I warn hon. Members and the Government about ultrafine particles. When I was a youngster, I left school and went to the shop floor. I worked up north in a place near Hebden Bridge. Hebden Bridge is where they manufactured asbestos. We had suddenly discovered asbestos. At that point, people were campaigning to keep the factory there for the jobs and all the rest of it.
The effects of ultrafine particles are the asbestosis of the future. Look at the research. The Government have now set up a committee of experts to look at this issue, and it will report in three months’ time, possibly after we have been asked to make a decision. What we know about ultrafine particles is, first, that they come from aviation fuel in particular and that they spread across not just the surroundings of the airport, but at least 10 km around where there are emissions from aviation in particular. That means that we now have evidence from the working group of ultrafine particles in central London.
What do ultrafine particles do? They penetrate our bodies, get into the lungs, the heart and all the rest of it, and we are now discovering the cardiovascular disease and different cancers that are occurring. They also penetrate the brain. We are worried about what they are doing to our children, who are growing up breathing these ultrafine particles.
I warn the Government: this is a bit like asbestosis. We have to recognise that once this impact has been pointed out to us, if we continue to inflict it on our population in London, we will be held responsible as a Government for enabling it to happen.
We have already raised all the issues that have been brought forward today, including noise. We had a session a month ago with the noise experts, who now tell us that the Government’s level is too high. The threshold of damage to people’s health is so much lower than that, and we are well beyond the European limits. We need to shake people up, because we do not even know the flight paths yet. All we can do is look at what has been said in the past, and we know that at least another 900,000 people—nearly a million—will be affected by the consequences of noise and air pollution.
When we debated this issue last time, we were told that there is an urgent need to deliver the project for the good of our economy, even though we now know that it will cost us 15,000 jobs. Where will those jobs be lost? From regional airports. Members should have a look at the New Economics Foundation analysis. On top of that, we are told that there is a sense of urgency, but what did we hear a fortnight ago? Heathrow has delayed expansion by another five years.
I come to the cost escalation. Since we have had this debate over the last couple of years, the costs have doubled. It is expected that £15 billion is needed to pay for the transport infrastructure, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Putney said, Heathrow is not putting in a penny. Hon. Members know that Heathrow will come to two groups to pay for the infrastructure: taxpayers and passengers. This is such a con and we have to throw it out, once and for all. I do not want to be here in a couple of years’ time.
There is now no rationale for proceeding with Heathrow expansion. We need to come back after the consultation, and I hope that the Government will say, “Enough is enough.” We must kill off this project, once and for all. We cannot just keep coming back and wasting resources on all this. I think there is a responsibility on all our shoulders, particularly now, because we know so much more about the detriment not just to our individual constituencies, but to the economy overall and to the health of millions of people.
The message to the Government should be to just kill off Heathrow expansion. Let us finish this ritual that we have purely because of the lobbying impact of Heathrow airport. We have to stand up and represent our constituents, not corporations that will rip off us in the future.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair this afternoon, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for securing the debate, and for the way in which she introduced it. I know that my two Liberal Democrat colleagues from south-west London, my hon. Friends the Members for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), will completely agree with her. They have a long history of standing up against the unreasonable plan to expand Heathrow.
I want to talk about my Woking constituents’ point of view. Despite Woking being the busiest railway station in Surrey and less than 20 miles away from the airport, we have no rail link to Heathrow. I say to the Minister that if Heathrow airport is to expand, the Government must ensure that southern rail access is paid for by the airport so that my constituents in Woking, and the whole southern region under Heathrow, can have proper access. It is not reasonable that we cannot access it at the moment via any form of public transport.
Thankfully, Heathrow Southern Railway Ltd, a private company with which I recently chaired a roundtable, has put together a business case to ensure that we can have southern rail access. It would also enable Woking and the broader west Surrey area to have a second route to London via Heathrow, and then on to Paddington. Has the Minister met with Heathrow Southern Railway Ltd? If not, will he or a ministerial colleague do so?
I want to draw parallels with the planning requirements for Gatwick’s second runway. As a planning condition, the airport was required to ensure that a certain percentage of travellers could come via public transport, particularly trains. Will those requirements be applied to Heathrow, if it expands? If it does expand, it should have those requirements. I know that the Department for Transport was looking at this issue via the airports national policy statement review and the public transport requirements, but I hope it makes Southern Railway access a legal requirement if Heathrow expands. That would ensure that if the expansion happens—many colleagues do not want it—passengers will be able to get to Heathrow as sustainably as possible.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for securing this timely and important debate. She set out very well the issues that we are concerned about and grappling with.
Heathrow expansion raises significant concerns among my constituents, given that my constituency neighbours the airport. As has been said, this is not a new issue. I was going to say that it has been going on since the ’90s, but apparently it was in 1983—before I was born at Hillingdon hospital—that the people took up the mantle and battled expansion. That explains why people are incredibly frustrated and jaded: the same questions are being asked yet again, but we are getting no answers to these decades-long problems.
The Government have been explicit time and again about their commitment to the four tests, which I share. Does Heathrow expansion deliver economic growth in every region? Is it consistent with our climate change commitments? Will it undermine air quality progress? Will the plans properly manage, limit and mitigate the noise impact? If the expansion fails to meet those tests, it should not be allowed to go ahead. That was always my starting point, and to this day I have been consistent about that when looking at the proposals.
To be frank, the numbers that we have seen are not reassuring. According to the Government’s own modelling, the impact on GDP is predicted to be just 0.03% to 0.05% by 2056—a reduction in the economic benefit set out in earlier estimates by a factor of 10. In addition, the Department’s modelling suggests that, once monetised costs and benefits are considered, expansion could impose greater costs than benefits over 60 years, with a negative net present value of between £20 billion and £60 billion to the economy.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said that there would potentially be benefits to consumers, but projections suggest that ticket prices could rise by £60 to £65, or £250 for a family of four, as the higher airline charges to fund the development will be passed on to passengers. Rather than extend air travel to more, it could price out ordinary families from travelling from Heathrow. That is why major airlines themselves are concerned about the proposals. Many Members have heard from them.
I share the new Government’s ethos of delivering growth in every postcode, but the analysis shows that Heathrow would not be a silver bullet. Modelling suggests that between 72% and 92% of the benefits of the expansion would be concentrated in London and the south-east, and research by the New Economics Foundation suggests that up to 15,000 jobs could be displaced from regions outside London and the south-east, harming regional airport capacity. Many Members are rightly fighting for such growth in their regions.
It was previously claimed that expansion could be funded entirely from private investment, but that is simply not the case. There are real concerns about burdens on taxpayers. Just last week, Heathrow told the Transport Committee that it does not intend to cover the full cost of rail infrastructure. Time and again, we see taxpayers in London and elsewhere in the UK pick up the price for Heathrow-related travel. The new Elizabeth line trains, which are being built and will be rolled out soon, will not serve West Drayton, my constituents or constituents between Reading and Maidenhead, because the capacity is going to serve Heathrow, but the airport is providing no money. The headlines about expansion tell us one thing, but Heathrow bosses admit to another.
We risk pressing ahead with an incredibly expensive and financially dubious infrastructure project not because it offers a credible path to growth but because it has become a symbol of whether we are committed to growth in an abstract form. We saw that with HS2. Although rail expansion and capacity are undoubtedly needed in the country, we pushed ahead with a project that was poorly scoped, poorly costed and poorly specced, and it led to decades of underperformance and cost inflation.
As Members have said, the evidence falls flat on the other tests too. On the noise impact, a huge number of people will be pulled into increased noise and disruption across London, although the flight paths are still uncertain, so we cannot be sure about the exact scope and extent. The costs of mitigating noise impacts, with secondary glazing or replacement housing, are potentially exponential, and we still do not know how they will be paid or who will pay for them.
The Climate Change Committee’s work, published last month, found that aviation emissions had more than doubled since 1990, and that Heathrow currently accounted for half of all UK aviation emissions. It concluded there is no credible pathway for Heathrow expansion to be compatible with the UK’s vital climate commitments under current policies. Meanwhile, on air pollution, serious concerns remain over the reliability of modelling and whether the impact of the latest expansion proposals has been sufficiently assessed.
Frankly, there is no point standing on a commitment to these four tests as criteria for shaping the future of Heathrow, if the moment they are not met, we abandon them. It is not something I can do while looking my constituents squarely in the face. For many of us, Heathrow expansion is a perennial issue that should be dealt with, so we do not have to keep on talking about it. For residents in Hillingdon and London, the impacts will be profound, with the case as shaky now as it has ever been.
That has been compounded by what can only be described as an incredibly poor consultation process, which failed to engage properly with the strength of feeling on the issue, with consultations taking place in August, despite many stakeholders, including me, outlining the difficulty of securing proper engagement over the summer. Heathrow’s own consultation that is taking place as we speak, with have no events in my constituency, despite its neighbouring the airport. Perhaps Heathrow does not want to hear questions because, as we have seen time and again, it does not have the answer to meeting the four tests.
We must take our time and think fully about the implications of expansion. We must have access to proper data that is thought through. I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Putney in calling for a proper national strategy about our aviation needs, which thinks holistically about every region and every aspect of our nation’s aviation needs. We must think again on Heathrow expansion.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to see you in the chair today, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for securing this important debate and for so clearly laying out the case against Heathrow expansion. I begin by declaring my interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on airport communities.
Hon. Members who support a third runway would likely say it is appalling that we have been debating this issue for 20 years, or 40 years in the case of the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who started his campaign as I turned five. Those Members are right; it is appalling that we have been discussing it for so many years. Every time a new Government raise the prospect of a third runway, communities in west and south-west London feel this is an albatross around their necks that they cannot get rid of.
It is time to put this issue to bed once and for all. The evidence is clearer than ever that Heathrow expansion is a white elephant that would have devastating consequences for our environment, as well as our local communities. The economic case simply does not stand up. I apologise to right hon. and hon. Members for repetition in my speech of what has already been said, but it is important that the Minister hears, across parties and across London, the strength of feeling against this project.
When I last spoke on this issue in the Chamber, I pointed out that the Government had provided little evidence to support their claims of the benefits of a third runway. Since then, the Government have published the Heathrow expansion national policy statement—HENPS as we like to call it. Rather than provide evidence, if anything it has made even clearer that the case for expansion is simply not credible.
In the space of 21 months, since the former Chancellor announced Government support for expansion, the promise of GDP growth has been downgraded from 0.43% to just 0.05% by 2056. That is a decrease of 90% since an announcement was made in a speech about growth—just to send a signal to the City, as the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington laid out so clearly.
The same can be said about jobs. The former Chancellor promised 100,000 jobs, but 61,000 are promised in the HENPS, and the Department for Transport explicitly acknowledges that this is likely to mean the redistribution of labour, not new jobs. That is supported by research conducted by the New Economics Foundation, which suggests that two thirds of jobs will be displaced from other parts of the UK.
As our new Prime Minister said, Heathrow expansion traps investment in London and the south-east, and the regions of the UK will suffer for it. Given the Prime Minister’s commitment to growth in every postcode, perhaps the Government should bring forward a national aviation strategy, rather than continuing to pursue Heathrow, to allow aviation policy with that regional growth mission.
I and many others have warned since the beginning that the affordability of the scheme is questionable at best. A third runway is a huge infrastructure investment that would require the relocation of London’s busiest motorway, the M25, with all the ensuing congestion, chaos and pollution. Will the Minister tell us in his closing remarks what work his Department is doing with National Highways to assess those impacts? With a price tag of £49 billion and rising, it is our duty as Members of Parliament to raise questions about where that money will come from, especially as the figure does not include surface access improvements, particularly for public transport.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster) that I strongly support the southern rail link, and the case has already been made to build and invest in it. As he said, his constituents cannot get to the airport from Woking. Believe it or not, I am only a few miles from it in Whitton, near Twickenham, and there is not a direct link for me and my constituents to get there either, so there is already a case for public transport investment. However, there is no mention of that in the HENPS and no costing for it, so I hope the Minister will elaborate on the Government’s expectations for surface access improvements and how they will be funded. As the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) said, no one wants to see another HS2, with spiralling costs and delays.
That is why last week it was so galling, after months of questioning Ministers and being told that they had full confidence in the expansion being solely privately funded, to see reports in the press that the Government were hiring bankers to advise on:
“The financeability and financial deliverability of Heathrow expansion”.
Minister, why are the Government doing this and why now? Given that they have commissioned these bankers to make the assessments, how exposed is the public purse? It is grossly irresponsible.
After the summer we have just had, it is clearer than ever that climate change is having a serious impact on the quality of life in this country—on our health, economy and public services. At the same time, the Government propose to expand the single largest polluter in the UK, to the tune of carbon emissions equal to the entirety of Birmingham. The Climate Change Committee made that clear in its advice to the Government, arguing that expansion is incompatible with our climate commitments. That same morning, the Minister for Local Energy and Jobs said on the radio that it was only advice and could be ignored. I hope the Minister will say whether he accepts the Climate Change Committee’s expert advice and what the Government actually intend to do with it.
This is an opportunity to press pause, look again at all the evidence and listen to the voice of local communities. Indeed, the Prime Minister has said that this should be a decision for Londoners. Londoners will suffer most in terms of the health and noise impacts. Expansion could mean that up to 3.4 million people will be exposed to harmful levels of aircraft noise, but, as others have said, we cannot even be sure who, as airspace modernisation is happening at the same time, which makes it impossible to consider the scale of the impact properly.
More evidence continues to come out. The aviation night noise effects and aviation noise attitude survey studies done by Professor Charlotte Clark on behalf of the Department for Transport have stated clearly that the harmful impacts of noise occur at a lower level than previously understood. That is not something, as proponents of Heathrow expansion like to say, that one can get used to. Furthermore, expansion means that 10,000 extra tonnes of nitrogen dioxide will be produced a year. the HENPS simply does not have adequate protection for that, and it is deathly silent on the issue of ultrafine particles that the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington spoke so knowledgably about.
It is crucial that any decision on a third runway is undertaken with evidence leading the way. I welcome the Prime Minister’s recent comments, and I hope he is not equivocating without thinking. I look forward to receiving a reply to my letter to him about the issue, which I sent on the day that he became Labour leader back in July. The evidence is clear. Millions of Londoners are clear. We do not want a third runway at Heathrow. While the Conservatives have made clear that they are very happy to ignore the evidence and the voice of local communities and railroad this scheme through, come what may, I hope that the Prime Minister will instead stand by his convictions, as he has promised to do time and again, and take a third runway off the table once and for all, for the sake of taxpayers, our planet and our local communities, whose health and wellbeing risk being blighted by this project.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I will now call the Front-Bench spokesman for each party. I suggest that the Liberal Democrats and the Opposition speak for eight or nine minutes and the Minister speaks for 10 minutes or so, and then there will be time for Fleur Anderson to speak for a few minutes at the end, and for me to put the question.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for her excellent opening speech. I hope she will not mind my saying that I experienced a certain sense of déjà vu during it, because, although she put things excellently, as she always does, this is not something I have not heard before. I very much hope that the Minister was listening.
The Liberal Democrats have consistently opposed a third runway at Heathrow because the case for expansion has never added up. With the proposed economic benefits declining by 90% in the past decade, an operational second runway at Gatwick in the pipeline, and the Climate Change Committee’s recent statement that a third runway would be incompatible with the UK’s net zero targets, there is simply no case to be made for expansion any more. Despite the former Chancellor’s framing a third runway as part of the UK’s growth agenda, the Treasury’s analysis puts the third runway’s net value to UK residents at between minus £23.4 billion and minus £62.5 billion over 60 years. Heathrow is already in over £17 billion-worth of debt. The headline cost of a third runway, which the Government assert will be completely privately funded, stands at £49 billion, but that does not take into account over £100 billion of carbon abatement costs, nor the billions of pounds required for investment in the surface access upgrades that are needed.
I was also reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) about the impact of the third runway plans on the M25 and the huge economic impact that will have across a vast swathe of the south-east. If the additional passengers cannot even travel to Heathrow, that rather defeats the purpose of adding capacity. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster) made the point that we lack so many connections across the south-east that it is already incredibly difficult to travel to Heathrow. That is not just from Surrey; my constituency does not have a direct link, despite Richmond being a mainline station in south-west London. The lack of access will not just affect passengers; it will also reduce access to employment, severely limiting some of the economic benefits that we have heard about. It simply will not be possible for people to access the airport to take up the jobs.
That is not to mention that Heathrow will seek to recoup its investment by passing on the cost to passengers. That will, of course, increase the cost of flying, as we have heard from a number of contributors to the debate, which will dampen demand. The Government recently spent £3 million on a banker to advise on the strength of the economic case for Heathrow; those of us here in the Chamber could have saved them the bother. With the Government seeking to find savings in the upcoming Budget, we can also save them the effort: there is no viable financial case for expansion.
The introduction of nearly 300,000 more flights a year will have unavoidable environmental and social consequences. The Government’s commissioned aviation night noise effects study identifies that residents exposed to higher levels of aircraft noise are twice as likely to experience severe sleep disturbance. Many of the MPs in this room will have heard about those impacts directly from their constituents. We had a good community meeting across Richmond borough—my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham and I attended—and some of the stories we heard were particularly harrowing, especially from young people suffering from learning disabilities and additional needs such as autism. The impact of night flights and aircraft noise on those people is unendurable.
Those indicators are widely accepted to correlate with an increased risk of hypertension and cardiovascular disease as well as poor mental wellbeing. 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. The flightpaths for a third runway have not even been designed yet, so how can the Government produce a viable noise impact assessment and reassure residents who are not already exposed to aircraft noise that a third runway will not impact them? I did not plan to mention this, but I want to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and his impactful description of what it means for not only the people whose homes are on the proposed site of the third runway, but for those whose homes surround it, and his powerful case about the effect it will have on their lives.
On the environmental argument, it should almost go without saying that adding these additional flights to our skies will have a profound impact on air pollution and climate change. The Government have previously used wishful thinking in their assertions that sustainable aviation fuel will mitigate the additional pollution from the expansion of Heathrow, although they seem to have scaled back that argument more recently. Heathrow is already the biggest single source of carbon emissions in the UK, and expansion will add an extra 8 to 9 megatonnes of CO2 into our environment every year. The Climate Change Committee’s recent conclusion that expansion is not compatible with the UK’s climate commitments presents the Government with a clear choice: to pursue a third runway at Heathrow or to take the climate crisis facing us seriously. It seems an easy decision to me.
Does the Minister agree with the Climate Change Committee’s verdict that the current plans for a third runway are not compatible with the UK’s climate change commitments? The Prime Minister’s recent comments that distanced the Government’s support from a third runway were a step in the right direction, but he needs to go further, back his own convictions and categorically oppose expansion. I anticipate that the Tory spokesman, the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), will reflect his party’s recent conference commitment to expanding Heathrow. That shows not only its lack of interest in the wellbeing of London and Londoners but its susceptibility to big business lobbying in the face of hard economic facts. Will the Minister advise the Prime Minister that the third runway proposal is not fit for purpose and put an end to this white elephant once and for all?
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. Just after the second world war, in May ’46, the first commercial flights departed Heathrow, marking the beginning of an 80-year journey that has seen over 3 billion passengers move through the airport and take 22 million flights. Between September last year and August this year, 84 million passengers went through Heathrow. The Prime Minister likes to talk about the industrialisation of the past century. Heathrow and our other airports across the country are symbols of the modern industrialised world, where transportation between countries is a major engine of economic development.
That leads us to the subject of today’s debate, Heathrow expansion. A long-running and undeniably contentious issue is at stake here. I do not think anyone could be surprised to see the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) make the case against expansion. Her predecessors as MPs did the same, all the way back to Hugh Jenkins, who in 1970 asked the Government to give an undertaking
“that no further enlargement of Heathrow Airport will be permitted and that no additional runways of any kind will be allowed.”—[Official Report, 4 November 1970; Vol. 805, c. 366W.]
However, the figure of 84 million passengers makes it clear that Heathrow is at capacity. The lack of further capacity is severely constraining its ability to grow and, as a consequence, Britain’s ability to grow through its hub airport. Data published in March by Airports Council International showed that the growth in passenger numbers at Heathrow of 1.9% falls well behind the European average of 4.6%. If we want businesses in this country to grow and to encourage private investment, we should not stand in the way of development that offers economic benefits. If we do, the demand for flights will not dissipate. Rather, operators will choose to fly and invest elsewhere—particularly given that Heathrow is a hub airport—and most likely at competing European airports that have expanded their facilities, such as Schiphol, Charles de Gaulle and Frankfurt. In many cases, they will also build new runways. Alongside that will be the jobs and the other opportunities that go with it.
Sarah Olney
Would the right hon. Gentleman like to say more about those economic benefits, given that the Treasury’s figures show that the likely economic impact of Heathrow expansion is between minus £25 billion and minus £63 billion over 60 years?
Mr Holden
I will come on to those figures because I think we can all agree that there is questioning of them. It surprises me that the former Chancellor of Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves), and the current Chancellor of Exchequer are so vociferously supportive of the airport expansion if those figures are true.
Jim Shannon
In my contribution, I intimated that there is uncertainty about the growth of Belfast City airport: it has its plans to grow, but the growth of Heathrow will be part of how Belfast City airport will grow—the two of them can grow together. Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that when it comes to regional connectivity, the opportunity for us to grow in Belfast, in Northern Ireland, depends greatly on how Heathrow grows?
Mr Holden
The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point. I remember, as a Transport Minister, visiting Belfast City airport, Belfast International airport and City of Derry airport. They are so important, and they reinforced to me how important that plug-in from Heathrow, as our international hub, is for not just Northern Ireland but Scotland, Wales and the north of England. None of our other airports have that hub status. That is why Heathrow is under different regulations and a different model. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about how that connectivity drives growth right across the UK.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
Will the hon. Member give way?
Mr Holden
No; I have just given way twice, and I will happily give way again later. Since the announcement was made, the Conservative party’s leadership has been clear: expansion should go ahead provided that sensible and proportionate local mitigation measures form part of that plan. Heathrow and the Government have already set out a number of those measures. However, it is critical that they genuinely serve the interests of local residents and do not impose excessive costs that will ultimately be passed on to passengers.
I turn to the challenges posed for the Minister in the debate. The former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Leeds West and Pudsey, as well as the former Prime Minister and the current Chancellor have all backed the project. The Minister is now in the unenviable position of trying to explain whether the Government of which he is a member actually support expansion or not. The situation has become a political version of Schrödinger’s cat. The Prime Minister seems to believe that by refusing to give a clear answer and by deflecting attention towards the concerns about other projects, he can leave some people believing that the runway idea is alive and some believing it is dead, all at the same time.
The other day, the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the International Monetary Fund:
“The case for a third runway at Heathrow has always been a case for growth”.
This created a completely different impression of the Government’s position. Unfortunately, that good cop, bad cop approach to expansion does little to reassure investors—not just investors in Heathrow, but investors in the UK in general. As Heathrow made clear in evidence to the Transport Committee, investors want clarity about the regulatory framework so that they can assess the project’s business case with confidence.
Although there has been much speculation about the timetable for expansion, the lack of clarity over the Government’s position and regulatory framework risks undermining confidence further. If the Prime Minister does not appear to give the project his support, how on earth can investors have confidence in the regulatory process, which is ultimately overseen by the Government he leads?
I am afraid that the discrepancy between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor gets to the heart of the challenges facing the Government. By giving the public the impression that they are jettisoning the previous Government’s commitment, the Prime Minister is once again demonstrating what has become his trademark skill: evading responsibility and avoiding difficult decisions.
Danny Beales
The right hon. Gentleman has presented the clarity in the Opposition’s position, but my understanding is that the Conservative party is quite divided on this matter. The local Conservative-led council in Hillingdon opposes it, as do many MPs. The position that he put forward had quite a big “if” caveat: they would support it “if” there were no costs and additional measures. Those measures are not clear. As many have said, the costs are not being covered. The taxpayer would have to foot the bill for significant transport improvements and mitigation measures, which are not being funded. What price are the Opposition willing to have taxpayers pay for Heathrow to go ahead?
Mr Holden
Whenever there is a large infrastructure project in the country—we are fully aware of this and always have been—there will always be local objections, as we would expect at council and sometimes constituency MP level. I think everybody understands that. The broader point is that Heathrow will be a privately funded project, and we support it on that basis.
What is the cost of the failure to make a decision? It is lost growth and forgone private sector investment. This is the same behaviour that we have seen towards vital projects such as more drilling in the North sea. The Prime Minister wants to talk about re-industrialisation without giving British companies or businesses the tools they need to achieve that. As the Leader of the Opposition stated:
“The future of our country’s busiest airport is not a regional matter”
That is why I take issue with some of the speeches made by Members today. This is a matter for the country and for the Prime Minister, so, in the words of the Leader of the Opposition, he needs to “stop faffing about” and “get this runway built.”
There has been much discussion today about the level of economic growth that the airport would deliver, to pick up on the intervention made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park. However, we should all be able to agree that the project would bring economic benefits. The £17 billion in benefits estimated by Heathrow is a considerable sum. Although I understand that the Department has produced different figures, I ask the Minister what steps the Department is taking to ensure that its economic analysis captures the full benefits for passengers and trade in full and, indeed, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, right across the United Kingdom as well.
Furthermore, the project will increase investment in UK supply chains, create jobs and provide opportunities for new apprenticeships. The chief executive officer of Heathrow said only last week that of the billions in private sector investment, 95% will go into the UK supply chains, alongside more than 100,000 jobs that Heathrow says the project could support.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
The hon. Gentleman should familiarise himself with “Erskine May”, page 488, which makes it clear that when you have not been present for the bulk of the debate, it is not polite to intervene. The right hon. Gentleman who has the floor now needs to bring his remarks to a conclusion to give maximum time to the Minister.
Mr Holden
Thank you very much, Sir John. I will just say that there are clearly vested interests on all sides. If the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West does not think that existing airlines with existing slots have vested interests, he is living on a different planet. With the most recent economic figures showing a contraction in construction output, how on earth can we justify failing to provide clarity about such a significant infrastructure project?
From the outset, it has felt that the Department for Transport was trying to catch up with announcements made by the Treasury and Prime Minister. Now it appears that progress might be stalled by No. 10 instead. I am afraid that the non-answers we have seen from the Government to date demonstrate a lack of seriousness on their part. I hope that the Minister can encourage his more senior colleagues to provide some of that certainty, and maybe he can provide even more today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir John. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to today’s debate. I thank the hon. Members in attendance, and my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for bringing this important debate to the House.
Hon. Members may have noticed that I am not the Aviation Minister; my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Keir Mather) is attending Committee proceedings on the Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill. However, I am here as the Minister for Local Transport. I care deeply about the impacts of the expansion on the wider transport network. That means considering how people travel to and from the airport and ensuring that transport infrastructure is able to meet future demand while supporting local communities.
Simon Lightwood
I will make a bit of progress, if the hon. Member does not mind. We are a bit short on time.
I may not be able to respond to every question raised during the debate, as the Government are currently considering the consultation responses, and parliamentary scrutiny of the draft Heathrow expansion national policy statement—or HENPS—remains ongoing. It would not be appropriate to pre-empt those processes or prejudge any future decisions while that work remains under way. However, I will ensure that hon. Members receive responses in due course to any points that I am unable to cover.
This Government recognise Heathrow’s critical role as the UK’s only hub airport, connecting businesses and passengers to global markets and supporting trade, tourism and investment across the country.
Simon Lightwood
I am still going to make a bit of progress; I have limited time, and I want to reply to the points raised.
Hon. Members will be aware that the Government published the draft HENPS consultation in June. That set out the proposed planning policy framework for expansion and the requirements that any future scheme would need to meet, including the Government’s four tests on economic growth, climate change, air quality and noise.
As I have noted, we are carefully considering the more than 27,000 responses received and will also consider the recommendations of the Transport Committee. Any finalised HENPS would also be subject to parliamentary consideration, including a debate and a vote in the House, before it could have legal effect.
The draft HENPS does not grant development consent for expansion. Only when a national policy statement has been designated can proposals for a development consent order be brought forward. Any future proposal by a promoter of expansion would still need to progress through the statutory development consent order process and demonstrate that it met the requirements of the relevant policy framework. It is for potential promoters to determine the timetable and sequencing of their proposals, and for the Government to put the right frameworks in place. Any potential promoter bringing forward a scheme of this scale and complexity will need to balance pace with deliverability, affordability and value for money for passengers.
Given the current stage of the consultation process and the ongoing period of parliamentary scrutiny, I will not seek to pre-empt those processes, and my remarks today should be considered in that context. The Government will provide a more substantive update to the House once we are in a position to do so. That said, I will address some of the points raised during today’s debate where I can.
John McDonnell
I understand the difficulty that the Minister is in, and I have a lot of sympathy for him; I would not want to be associated with this thing either. There is one issue that I would like him to write to us on. The air quality working group will report in three months’ time, which could possibly be after a decision is made by the Government. One of the things that we will be asking for, if any framework is developed, is for the Government to set a limit that we should aim for on ultrafine particles. In Europe, they do that, and it is increasingly becoming a legal requirement to monitor them there. We have no monitoring and no limit. If he could write to me about the Government’s consideration of that, it would be really helpful.
Simon Lightwood
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. I will come on to ultrafine particles in a bit. First, turning to the four tests—economic growth being the first—expansion could generate economic growth across the country, with updated analysis indicating potential cumulative benefits of between £39 billion and £52 billion to UK passengers and the wider economy, including lower fares, increased flight frequencies and fewer delays.
Ayoub Khan
With any infrastructure project, there will obviously be a balance between growth and the economy on the one hand, and the impact on the environment and many families on the other. In this case, it seems that the growth does not outweigh the negative impact. May I digress a little? It may be unsurprising that we do not have transport infrastructure, given the cost to drivers who have to park at airports. Sixteen of the top 20 airports across the UK have faced an increase of more than 33% in six months. Drivers are calling it an absolute rip-off; 81% of those surveyed agree. Will the Minister consider reducing the costs, or involving himself in that?
Simon Lightwood
I am sure that the Aviation Minister will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s message and will be delighted to respond to him.
Any promoter must give evidence that expansion will deliver benefits across the country, not just locally. Analysis published alongside the draft HENPS indicates that up to 40% of the estimated GDP growth is expected to accrue in regions outside London and the south-east.
Deirdre Costigan
I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being very generous with his limited time. Many of my constituents in Ealing Southall have responded to the consultation. Noise has been a particular concern, so I hope that he will manage to make some remarks on how realistic steeper landing approaches and new aircraft technology might be in addressing noise.
I also want to talk about jobs. The Minister talks about growth. Many of my constituents work at the airport, and their worry is that if the expansion does not go ahead, we will lose our status as a hub airport and their jobs might be at risk in the future. Is the Minister able to say anything to reassure the many workers from my constituency in good-quality jobs at Heathrow airport?
Simon Lightwood
Once again, I am sure the Aviation Minister will have heard my hon. Friend, and I will go on to address some of those issues.
The draft HENPS introduces a new test requiring potential promoters for development consent to demonstrate, through a clear, evidence-based growth strategy, how their scheme will support economic activity and growth at national, regional and local levels.
I will move on to climate change. The draft HENPS contains a clear climate change requirement whereby any increase in carbon emissions resulting from a proposed scheme must not be so significant that it would have a material impact on the UK’s legally binding carbon budgets. For expansion to proceed, it would need to align with the Government’s climate goals, including our legal commitment to reach net zero by 2050. Any increase in carbon emissions associated with Heathrow expansion would need to be considered against the Government’s carbon reduction targets and the mitigation requirements set out in the draft HENPS.
On air quality, the draft HENPS is also clear that a scheme for Heathrow expansion must demonstrate that it will not result in any new breaches of legal obligations on air quality or make existing breaches materially worse. As part of that, the draft HENPS sets out mitigations that a potential promoter should consider to minimise the impact of the project on the environment and affected communities.
Finally, the draft HENPS sets out a noise test requiring overall aircraft noise to be limited and, where reasonably possible, reduced in comparison with 2024, taking into account quieter aircraft and operating procedures while providing adequate and predictable respite for communities. The mitigations should include a runway alternation scheme and a scheduled night flight ban. The draft HENPS currently requires an applicant to propose a scheduled night flight ban of six and a half hours, between the hours of 11 pm and 7 am, as part of their proposed mitigations of the noise impacts. Expansion would increase capacity, which may provide greater operational flexibility and allow aircraft to land more efficiently, potentially reducing reliance on extended holding patterns. That could benefit people living in the areas currently affected by noise from aircraft in holding patterns before landing.
Through the consultation, we are listening carefully to views across all four tests. However, I want to make it clear that we recognise that noise and air quality are particularly important to many local residents, and we are committed to ensuring that those concerns are fully considered as part of the process.
The draft HENPS also makes it clear that Heathrow expansion must be supported by a credible surface access strategy that enables more journeys to be made on public transport and reduces pressure on the wider transport network. The draft HENPS defines clear passenger public transport mode share targets. However, the onus will be on any potential promoter to demonstrate through the development consent order process that their proposed approach can credibly achieve those targets. Heathrow expansion is a private sector project, and the Government have been consistently clear that it must be privately financed.
Simon Lightwood
I am sure the Aviation Minister will have more to say on that. There has been much in the media about the Government looking at this area, and I am sure the Aviation Minister will continue to engage with hon. Members on airport drop-offs.
On affordability, Heathrow expansion is a private sector project, as I have said, and the Government have been consistently clear that it must be privately financed. That includes the surface access improvements necessary for the expanded airport. The Civil Aviation Authority is continuing to develop the future regulatory framework for expansion, including by considering how costs are assessed, managed and, where appropriate, recovered. The CAA’s primary duty is to protect the interests of consumers, and affordability will be important.
Hon. Members mentioned the consultation period. We believe that a consultation period of more than 10 weeks was proportionate for reviewing amendments to an existing national policy statement, rather than a brand-new statement. The consultation period was designed to take into account the summer holiday period. It was carried out in accordance with section 7 of the Planning Act 2008 and in line with the Cabinet Office consultation principles, which require consultations to last for a proportionate amount of time.
Hon. Members also mentioned the Climate Change Committee, which has identified one potential pathway and important conditions that it considers necessary. We are considering that advice alongside the wider evidence and will set out the Government’s conclusions in our formal response.
I thank all Members for attending today’s debate. As noted, the Government will give due regard to the recommendations of the Transport Committee, alongside the responses received during the consultation, before determining the next steps on Heathrow expansion. Without wishing to prejudge the process, any finalised HENPS will be subject to parliamentary consideration, including a debate and vote in this House, before it can have legal effect, giving hon. Members the opportunity to consider the proposal and exercise their right to vote either for or against it.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Before I call Fleur Anderson to wind up the debate, let me say that the Minister has stepped in for the Aviation Minister, who I appreciate is on other ministerial business and has committed to writing to a number of colleagues to deal with specific issues. I want to put it on the record that that commitment has been made, and I expect it to happen.
Fleur Anderson
I thank the Minister for stepping in. I recognise that he is a very responsible Minister in answering the local transport questions that have been raised time and again in this debate. I look forward to hearing answers about what the strategy will be. There is a huge hole in this project, although that is not the only thing to be concerned about.
I say to all those listening and to those who will be responding to the consultation, which will start on 27 October and continue until 22 December, that there are some concerns for those of us who live in London; we have heard the concerns about the noise and air pollution, and the very serious concerns about health. I welcome the respite information given by the Minister and the commitment to listen carefully to my constituents in Putney and others about the impact that any change to night flights would have, as well as the impact of all the proposed changes throughout the day. Although we do not yet know where the flightpaths will be, we know that far more people across London will be affected, so everyone who lives in London should respond to the consultation.
Those people who do not live in London should also respond and should look at the promises that are being made but not delivered—promises for economic growth across the country. There will not be “hope in every heart” or increased “growth in every postcode” from this development, although there will be a huge number of promises being made by Heathrow. Heathrow asked the Government whether it could increase its funding from airlines by £340 million to fund the promotion of this project, so people across the country should expect to be lobbied very hard about it. They should also expect huge figures to be discussed, but they should look into the assumptions behind them. To passengers, I say that there will be increased fares from this highly indebted company, because it will not be footing the bill.
I thank the Minister for looking into this—
John McDonnell
I just want to raise the issue of jobs again. In the Select Committee inquiry, one of the representatives who gave information about jobs said that there was a real concern that if the company flounders on the financing for this project, as it almost certainly will, it will come to Government—and if the Government say no, that will have an impact on the existing operation and will put it in jeopardy. Those Members who have constituents who work at Heathrow, as I do, are worried about the existing operation of the airport being threatened by the overreach with respect to the third runway. That is why we have always argued not for a bigger Heathrow, but for a better Heathrow.
Fleur Anderson
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I think that this debate has lifted the lid on some aspects of Heathrow as a company and that it is a highly indebted company and a very thin company with not a lot of financial backing to it. That puts at risk this whole project, which would come to the Government’s door if it fails, but it also puts jobs at risk, in addition to all the fear and worry of our constituents about the project going ahead. Will it just run into the sand and be a millstone around the Government’s neck?
This debate has also lifted the lid on the four tests. Can they really be met? That is a question that, as MPs concerned about the issue, we have asked many times. Unless the goalposts are being moved through the Heathrow expansion national policy statement so that they are so wide that anyone could meet the requirements, then, if the four tests are really going to be strong and serious tests, I cannot see how they can be met and how this project can go ahead. But I welcome the consultation that is coming up, and I encourage as many people as possible to get involved.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Heathrow airport expansion.