Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [Lords]

Danny Beales Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 9th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Cadbury]

I think I am right in saying that people also have to walk quite some way to get the bus to the airport. Talk about a lack of joined-up thinking in our public transport—and in this instance I include flying.

I fear that in this respect the UK is an embarrassment. When we travel on holiday or for other reasons, we can compare our airports with those that we travel to, and often the comparison is not very complimentary to the UK.

[Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is giving an excellent and thorough speech based on her and her Committee’s work. I agree with everything she has said, with one caveat, which is that even for those living a stone’s throw from the airport there often are not public transport links. In my constituency and my neighbour’s, many people who work at the airport cannot get there directly on one bus, so they are forced to drive and pay drop-off charges or park in questionable places, causing disruption to communities. Does my hon. Friend agree airports need to do much more on public transport?

[Ruth Cadbury]

Absolutely. For almost 40 years, I have dealt with Heathrow’s lack of interest in transport. My hon. Friend is to the north of Heathrow, and I know full well what he is saying. In fact, one of the section 106 conditions in the terminal 5 planning decision was that there be a direct bus between Feltham station and the central terminal area, without stopping. That would then create a fast link from Waterloo to Heathrow—this was long before the Elizabeth line. However, nobody marketed it or told anybody about it, so funnily enough when the funding gave out, there had not been enough passengers to make it viable, so it did not survive. I can think of many more examples.

Sometimes I come in to work on the Piccadilly and District lines, so I know that many people use those lines to travel to and from Heathrow, but they might go to, say, South Kensington to stay in a hotel. I have had to help an elderly couple who have come from Heathrow up and down the stairs that passengers have to take at South Kensington station. It is not a welcoming environment for visitors to this country. Obviously, the Elizabeth line has transformed that; it was long overdue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her opening remarks and for the measures in this Bill, which are broadly very welcome for passengers and for many in airport communities such as mine. To share the Secretary of State’s comments, my thoughts are also with those individuals and families who face significant disruption this week through the failure of NATS. It shows just how vital air travel is to people right across this country for business and for leisure, and the impact when it goes wrong. Although it is not directly related to the Bill, there has been lots of discussion in this debate about the incident and about the lessons that we can and should learn.

At Heathrow, the major airport in my borough, we have now unfortunately got somewhat used to quite significant incidents. There was recently a grid power outage, which caused significant disruption, and there have been a number of other incidents. We clearly need to look at the resilience of our air travel system and at planning for such incidents, which are increasingly common and can cause significant and harmful disruption to businesses and individuals. I hope that there will be a thorough consideration of the issue, as the Secretary of State said there would be. The sector could learn lessons more broadly than from this instance and better resilience planning could be put into place.

The Bill is welcome news for my constituents and the travellers who come through my home borough of Hillingdon. The borough has not just one airport but two: we are home to Heathrow and RAF Northolt, which has a significant and increasing civilian operation involving private flights that come under civil aviation. We are not shy of or ignorant of issues arising from civil aviation—flights, disruption and balancing some of the trade-offs and challenges that come with air travel.

My constituency neighbour and right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who is no longer in his place, has already talked about some of the concerns about potential Heathrow expansion and the third runway; I am sure that the House will rightly turn its attention to those very soon. Those of us who believe in a better but not necessarily bigger Heathrow need to see measures to address the current challenges that Heathrow presents, regardless of expansion. That is why the Bill is particularly welcome.

There will be much better consumer protections when things go wrong, as they sometimes inevitably will. The Bill also takes action to tackle some of the wild west behaviours and differences between the approaches of airlines and contractors; that has been mentioned when it comes to hand luggage, but there are also different, hard-to-navigate approaches when it comes to compensation and delay payments. Those who have experienced disruption will often remember having to hunt down air staff at 10 or 11 at night when the desk is closed. They have tried to find anyone who works for the airline concerned to find out what is going on and what compensation they may be able to get—only to get a £5 paper voucher for refreshments, which will buy about half a sandwich in an airport concession.

I support comments from Members about looking at best practice and upping and standardising the quality of provision, as well as learning from other sectors such as rail; the automatic “delay repay” system has been mentioned. For my sins, I have recently travelled on Avanti and have had to use that quite frequently. It is a helpful tool, and there is a quick compensation turnaround. Notably, the compensation is a payment for the cash that the customer paid for the travel that they did not get. Unfortunately, far too often the disruption payments from airlines are an invitation to travel on the airline again. A voucher to travel again on easyJet when someone has not been able to travel the first time seems perverse.

[Luke Taylor]

To add grist to the mill of all our travel experiences, I had a case in which a customer chose to pay for a seat allocation so that they could sit with their children. They got on the flight and were then moved, and had to claim compensation on the extra service they had paid for—otherwise they would not have got a refund. Does the hon. Member agree that these sorts of things need to be automated and quickened up to improve passenger experience and customer protection?

[Danny Beales]

I wholeheartedly agree, and this Bill is a fantastic opportunity to address some of the issues that have lingered for too long in the sector. Boosting enforcement powers at the Civil Aviation Authority would enable faster enforcement when those rights are not applied. That is also welcome.

Members have rightly mentioned the need for a much tighter definition of “extraordinary events”, and the need to ensure that it is properly applied. It cannot be a catch-all opt-out for airlines, allowing them to get around the requirements. I strongly welcome the removal of the cap on baggage, specialist equipment and wheelchairs. In the Health and Social Care Committee, and in other debates, we talk a lot about the challenge of getting specialist adaptive equipment. It can take a long time to get bespoke equipment. It is incredibly damaging and destructive if it is lost or damaged when a person travels, and they are not able to reclaim the full cost, so I strongly welcome that provision. I encourage the Minister to ensure that when the cap is removed and the provision is applied, there are no unintended consequences—that airlines do not become unwilling to allow such equipment to be stowed and boarded, and do not refuse to fly individuals because of the insurance risk around their equipment. I hope that we will ensure that there are no unintended consequences of applying the right policy.

I strongly support the provisions around modernising our airspace. We have to modernise outdated routes, now that we have modern flights, and now that technology is emerging that has a much lesser noise impact. There are options and flexibilities that remove the significant impact on heavily trafficked flight paths. How we do this is just as important as if we do it; it must be done with proper assessment and consultation of residents. It cannot be right to have just a few heavily trafficked routes, leading to the piling up and circling of flights and an unnecessary additional burden on communities.

I support the comments made about the value of the Bill looking at abusive travellers and their impact on staff, both at the airport and cabin-side. Air workers face unacceptable amounts of abuse in all forms, physical and verbal, and it is increasing. The stats from a recent Unite survey of just 300 workers in Scottish airports showed that 90% had experienced verbal abuse on a regular basis, 75% had experienced intimidation and aggression, and almost a third had experienced some form of physical assault. We are becoming a bit numb to the abuse and regular intimidation that public sector workers and those in customer-facing roles experience; it happens to hospital, rail and shop workers. We have to take action; we have done, for shop workers. I hope that we can explore the issue and use clause 13, which gives a power to create offences to properly deal with airline and airport abuse. Crucially—Unite the union is right about this—this has to apply not just to abuse in the cabin; it has to apply to the whole journey, from entering the airport to sitting on the plane. Any abuse and intimidation has to be dealt with properly. We need a comprehensive system that ensures that when a person is banned from one airline, that carries across the whole airport system; the ban cannot put the staff at other providers at risk.

Finally, I turn to drop-off charges, which have been much discussed. We had a significantly busy Westminster Hall debate on this, which the Minister attended and responded to. This is an issue of great concern to my constituents. Charges have gone up significantly at Heathrow and at the other airports we have heard of today. Frustratingly for people locally, airports do not disclose what the revenue is used for. It is not clear whether it goes towards improving the situation, or is invested in community transport so that people can avoid having to drive to the airport. There are no direct public transport routes to Heathrow for staff and airport visitors from the north or Ruislip parts of my borough. It is incredibly difficult, particularly for evening and night workers, to get there on public transport.

I hope that the provisions added to the Bill will increase the transparency of information about drop-off charges, ensuring that they are adequately advertised, there are easy ways to pay them, and they are fairly implemented, and will ensure that the revenue they generate genuinely goes towards improving community transport. As has been said, the charges mean that people do not drive to the airport, but instead drive to the area around the drop-off zone. Local councils are made to pick up the enforcement costs relating to that parking, and to the illegal commercial car parks opened without permission. Through the review, I hope that we can properly address those issues, which are of significant concern to many of my constituents and my communities. Overall, I strongly welcome the provisions of the Bill, and I hope that it makes swift progress through this place.

Heathrow Airport: Third Runway

Danny Beales Excerpts

Thursday 14th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

Airport Drop-off Charges

Danny Beales Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) for securing this important debate for airport communities.

Residents in my constituency know very well the impacts of airports, with Heathrow on our doorstep. The recent decision to increase the drop-off charge at Heathrow from £6 to £7 has been met with increasing frustration. Another issue mentioned in respect of the impact of airports on nearby villages is displacement. All too often, significant numbers of vehicles park in and around the Heathrow drop-off zone. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) were here, he would vividly describe the impact on Heathrow villages of the antisocial parking of people who are avoiding drop-off charges.

In my constituency, given the nearby bus routes and the Elizabeth line connection at West Drayton, people are clearly getting around drop-off charges by parking in and around airport communities, causing a huge amount of frustration and nuisance. That has led to local authorities, such as Hillingdon and many others, introducing controlled parking zones, which charge residents significant amounts to park in their own streets to avoid the impacts. Even then, CPZs are only as good as the enforcement. We have a massive issue with parking enforcement, particularly out of hours, at evenings and weekends. People park in streets and neighbourhoods, often blocking residents’ drives, and there is no enforcement activity. There is also a significant increase in unregulated car parks popping up on private land, where people sell parking at competitive and preferential rates, leading to significant impacts on local communities.

I agree that airport charges could support alternatives that discourage people from driving to the airport, along with the related impacts, but all too often we do not see the investment following the charges. In Heathrow’s case, the transport funds that the airport hold are unspent, and a large amount of investment has not been put back into improving local bus routes. Bus connections from my community to Heathrow are incredibly poor, both for airport visitors and for staff, who have to take indirect routes to get there by bus, on infrequent services and undercapacity routes. The smaller, infrequent buses make it difficult for people with luggage to travel.

With the introduction of the Elizabeth line, we have seen a really positive improvement in transport connections, but it is ultimately the taxpayer who has led investment on that route. There is concern and frustration that as Heathrow potentially expands—a lot more will be said on that should proposals come forward—it will again be the taxpayer who continues to fund public transport options, rather than Heathrow airport making an adequate contribution.

As has been said, self-employed people who work for Uber, and other app-based drivers to the airport, have reported feeling increasingly squeezed by the increasing charges. They are struggling to make ends meet given the cost of living crisis and the increasing charges that they and their customers have to bear. They feel under-engaged and under-consulted by the airports; as important stakeholders, they clearly should be engaged and consulted.

I hope that the Minister, in considering the many issues raised today, will also consider the role that could be played by better guidance and regulation on charges. In particular, will he look at the options for making it clear that the funds raised through such mechanisms must be spent on alternatives to driving to the airport? There has to be transparency about the funds raised and how they are spent because, as many Members have said, it is very hard to get that information out of the airports. There should be a duty and responsibility on airport authorities to collaborate on issues like transport displacement with the local authorities in which they are based.

Lastly, there should be real clarity in the design and communication of any measures. Like others, I recently drove to the airport to pick up a friend who had missed the last train and drop him off at a different tube line. It was incredibly difficult to work out exactly what is and is not within the drop-off charge zone, and where the ANPR cameras are and where they are not. The signage and communication are incredibly poor, both before and after the journey to the airport. I hope the Minister will consider those points and ensure that if drop-off charges are to continue, they work for local residents and the surrounding communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is exactly the kind of evidence that a judge would assess to establish whether sufficient notice had been given and how onerous a term is.

The second part is about whether the travelling public accept that this is a reasonable charge and has become the norm, as the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton asserts. An awful lot of people do not feel that it is fair in principle to charge for this service, because no real service is being supplied. People are occupying a bit of tarmac for one or two minutes. It used to be free, so the feeling of value is limited at best.

The hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) talked about a hidden charge, and he was absolutely right. As passengers, we are incredibly price-conscious when it comes to buying our flights. We will wear only one pair of socks for the entire holiday in order not to pay for baggage. We then get lumped with paying a tenner for being dropped off, and it is a hidden cost—it is not in the headline price of the flight.

I totally understand the reaction of many that this is unfair, and that the market is not working. The communal reaction is that we must regulate. Perhaps we should, but before we do so we need to understand why airports are raising these charges. I am sorry to say that in many cases it is because this Labour Government are forcing them to do exactly that.

If Government policy increases costs for airports, the airports, as rational commercial organisations, will seek to recover those costs from their consumers, because there is no one else—ultimately, the consumer always pays. This Government have increased employer national insurance contributions, levying more than £900 in additional tax for every single employee on the books. They have raised business rates enormously and have increased environmental targets, which also have significant cash consequences. All of it comes for the consumer.

I will not deal with national insurance contributions because we all know how impactful that change has been, not just to pubs but right across the private sector.

[Danny Beales]

I am just a bit confused. The hon. Member suggests that drop-off charges are the responsibility of this Government. At Heathrow, the charge is £7, but it was £6 during the 14 years of the last Government, so proportionally—following his argument—90%, or whatever the maths says it is, of the cost came from the last Government and only 10% from this Government. I do not exactly follow the logic of his argument.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The logic is not exact, but if you increase costs, you cannot be surprised if prices go up. Essentially, that is the point I am making.

On business rates, Gatwick has had the worst increase. According to the Financial Times, its business rates have increased from £40 million a year to £90 million a year, so the Government have increased Gatwick’s costs by £50 million every single year. Where do they think that money will come from? It will come from the consumer via drop-off charges, other additional charges or increases in the landing rates applied to airlines—such increases would go on to the consumer through increased air fares. It is therefore financially illiterate for the Government to very substantially raise the cost of doing business—particularly for airports, with their increased business rates—and then complain when these companies raise their charges.

There are additional costs on airports, which I will briefly talk about, because of environmental and net zero targets and requirements. Many airports have directly cited those costs to explain why they are raising charges. Many of them, including Bristol, Heathrow and Gatwick, have said that they are trying to raise drop-off charges to force passengers to use alternative modes of mass transport. That would be fine and well if additional public transport were available for those people being disincentivised from using their car.

However, I do not agree that we should penalise passengers by using the stick of increased charges to force them to use a less convenient mode of transport to get to the airport. Instead, we should lure passengers to airports by providing a method of public transport that is even more convenient than using the car. That is where the Government have gone wrong, because they have incentivised airports to use the stick of payments or costs to beat their own customers without providing an attractive alternative to car use.

I fear that I am running short of time—I see that I have one minute left—so I will not do the peroration where I say, “Aren’t the Conservatives wonderful? We are re-evaluating our environmental policies to get rid of the target of net zero by 2050, which is driving the transition at such a pace that it is increasing costs unrealistically, and we should be focusing on the consumer rather than on interest groups.” However, I hope that in the time available to him the Minister will show that he takes seriously what is genuinely an important issue that affects many millions of people around the country. It is an unfairness in plain sight. This is his opportunity to assure all our constituents that they have been listened to and that the Government are taking this issue seriously.

Heathrow: National Airports Review

Danny Beales Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

I actually think the opposite could be true: an expanded Heathrow could provide greater regional connectivity. The right hon. Member is right to highlight that Heathrow is our only hub airport, and it accounts for over 70% of long-haul flights, as well as over 70% of air freight by gross value, so it is an important economic asset. I repeat what I have said to others: we will move at speed and look at economic growth impacts across the entire country. But where he sees a challenge, I see opportunity.

[Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. I welcome the mention of the four tests that will be part of the review, but it must be said that scepticism is running high in Hillingdon, where the effects are greatest, and the four tests need to be more transparent. I encourage her to publish clearly what those four tests are and the metrics against which they will be assessed. I ask her for a commitment that the data and information that will be assessed will be fully and transparently shared with communities as early as possible so that it can be interrogated. I echo colleagues’ comments about the need for meaningful engagement with the communities most affected. Can she confirm that the engagement will not just be the formal consultation on the draft statement, but that there will be meaningful early engagement for the communities affected?

Airport Expansion

Danny Beales Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mike Kane]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman of that. SAF was stuck in the muck under the last Government; we waited years for announcements, and we have done more on that in six months than Tory Administrations did in 14 years. We are investing in cleaning up aviation fuel and funding technology on contrails, so that the air people breathe is always as clean as we can make it.

[Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)]

In a spirit of cross-party collaboration, I praise the shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), for expertly outlining some of the logistical challenges of Heathrow expansion. It is a surprise and a shame that the Tories did not answer those questions before voting for expansion in 2018 when in government. Does the Minister agree that any future application for Heathrow expansion—we do not yet have one—must address and solve those key issues, look at those logistical challenges, and say how expansion is compatible with our climate commitments, and with local concerns about air quality, pollution, noise and congestion?

[Mike Kane]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. Our four tests remain, and they have to be passed. Again, we are speculating that a development consent order will come before us. I am sure that he, as a doughty campaigner for his constituents, will make his voice heard.