Heathrow Airport: Third Runway
Munira Wilson Excerpts(2 days, 12 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Olney
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we need to see the economic case and to look at it in the round—not just the specific costs associated with building the runway, but all the additional costs associated with operating it at capacity and all the impacts that that will have on Heathrow, along with the whole of London and the south-east.
The economic argument simply does not stand up to scrutiny, while the social and environmental consequences of a third runway are unavoidable. Communities would be severely impacted by the additional flights that a third runway would bring. It is expected that nearly 325,000 more people will fall within the Department for Transport’s “significantly affected” decibel level measurement. That does not even reference the increased bombardment of noise that houses already impacted by Heathrow’s flights are likely to experience. Not only would that noise disturbance affect people’s everyday lives, whether their sleeping pattern or their ability to work from home, it would have serious physical and mental health repercussions for local residents.
People living in communities surrounding Heathrow have a 24% higher chance of stroke, a 21% higher chance of heart disease and a 14% higher chance of cardiovascular disease compared with people exposed to low levels of aircraft noise. Will the Minister confirm how many people will be exposed to noise at 45 decibels, the level that the World Health Organisation estimates that health impacts begin? Will the Government commit to setting a minimum acceptable level of noise by which any expansion proposal can be judged? Will the Government also commit to ensuring that there is no increase in night flights? People deserve a full night of undisrupted sleep, and I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that the Government do not plan to approve anything that would mean more planes fly over households during night hours.
Yesterday, the Government outlined their plan to introduce the civil aviation Bill in this parliamentary Session. Will the Minister outline a timeline for the introduction of that Bill, and will he explain how the Government can provide communities with reassurances that a third runway will not bring new or extended disruptions when airspace changes are yet even to be drawn up?
On the environmental argument, it should almost go without saying that adding nearly 300,000 extra flights to our skies each year will have a profound impact on air pollution and climate change. This Government have used wishful thinking in their assertions that sustainable aviation fuel will mitigate the additional pollution from Heathrow expansion. They are yet to provide any evidence that shows how Heathrow can expand while complying with their legal air pollution limits.
International uncertainty over China’s introduction of their SAF mandate, which accounts for more than 90% of our imported SAF, and challenges to UK-US trade have meant that the UK’s SAF targets, which in themselves would not mitigate pollution from Heathrow expansion, are even more difficult to deliver. The challenges to the UK’s ability to produce and import SAF were underscored by the Climate Change Committee’s report last year, which estimated that only 17% of the UK’s aviation industry will use SAF by 2040. That is 5% lower than the Government’s mandated targets and 8% below the EU’s target. The estimate does not even take into account the additional flights that would come in and out of the UK as a result of the proposed airport expansion.
Heathrow is already the single biggest source of carbon emissions in the UK, and expansion will add an extra 8 megatonnes to 9 megatonnes of CO2 every year. The Climate Change Committee’s balanced pathway to net zero estimates that aviation will contribute 23 megatonnes of CO2 by 2050. A third runway at Heathrow would increase emissions at the airport alone to 20 megatonnes. Does the Minister still believe that the UK can be compliant with our net zero targets with the expansion of Heathrow airport?
This Government have repeated that they will honour and respect the Labour party’s four tests, as highlighted by the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales). They are: growth across the country, noise issues to be addressed, air quality to be protected and our climate change objectives to be met. They must be passed before expansion can be approved. As I have just laid out, I do not believe that any of those tests can be passed, let alone all four, but I ask that the Government honour the principle of the tests and do not attempt to circumvent them by using biased data.
I hope I have underlined the importance of this decision for our economy, environment and local communities. Moreover, I hope that this speech has impressed on the Government that this decision cannot move ahead solely on the basis of political expediency.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Has the hon. Member sought all the appropriate permissions?
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), who is my constituency neighbour, and congratulate her on securing this important debate, on her excellent speech and on giving me permission to make a speech. I also thank the Minister for allowing me to speak today.
My hon. Friend has clearly laid out the key questions that Ministers need to address in approving a third runway at Heathrow, which we have heard publicly today. I am also grateful to the Minister for having previously met my hon. Friend and I when we set out a number of those questions privately to him.
As my hon. Friend has already said, in the King’s Speech yesterday the Government set out that
“Legislation will be introduced to unlock the benefits of airport expansion”.
I and many people, not least my constituents, are asking, “What benefits?” The truth is, as my hon. Friend has eloquently set out, the Government have provided precious little evidence to support their far-reaching claims of the economic benefits of a third runway at Heathrow. Many of us can only see costs, be they financial, environmental or to health.
It is obvious that the Government’s expansion of Heathrow—not just Heathrow, but London City, Stansted, Gatwick and Luton—will have a significant impact on this country’s climate commitments. When I and other hon. Members have raised such concerns in the House, Ministers’ answers revert to sustainable aviation fuel every time. However, the reality is that SAF is not a silver bullet. As my hon. Friend has suggested, the Government’s expectation is for SAF to meet 22% of aviation fuel demand by 2040, while the Climate Change Committee’s prediction is just 17%. That will not be enough to make up for the 8 megatonnes to 9 megatonnes of carbon emissions as a result of expansion. The Environmental Audit Committee has warned that by putting all our eggs in this basket, the Government’s delivery on carbon budgets and net zero is “in serious jeopardy”.
We must not lose sight of the human cost at the heart of this debate. Some 2.2 million people would suffer from an increase in noise pollution by 2050. Working people will see air pollution increase from congestion on the roads as the M25 is diverted for years—not to mention the permanent increase in traffic to the airport—and from thousands more flights over a very densely populated area, all pumping noxious fumes into our environment. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park has set out clearly the resulting health impacts.
Over the past 15 months, I, like my hon. Friend and a number of others, have asked this Minister, his predecessor, the Chancellor, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Transport Secretary about the funding behind expansion. They all insist that taxpayers’ money will not be used to fund expansion of Heathrow, but frankly, that is hard to believe, given the unsustainable financial circumstances of Heathrow airport and the eye-watering, ever rising costs of a third runway. As we have heard, Heathrow itself has suggested that its expansion will cost £49 billion, but other estimates are much higher, and this country’s track record of delivering infrastructure on time and on budget is not exactly promising.
At the same time, Heathrow is beginning to resemble another financial omnishambles: Thames Water. Both have significant debt and are spending massive amounts of money on infrastructure while jacking up prices for bill payers—or, in this case, those taking flights—knowing that the Government are ultimately there to bail them out if it all goes wrong. Let us make no mistake: taxpayers will be expected to foot part of the bill, and hard-pressed families and businesses will be forced to pay more for holidays and business trips through higher fares to fund the higher landing charges, as even airlines have warned.
We deserve transparency and accountability from this Government, but at the moment we are getting neither. This Government are delaying publication of vital evidence, such as the aviation night noise effects and aviation noise attitude studies, when we know they have been sitting on the Minister’s desk for months. The Minister has been far from clear on whether this House will have the chance to scrutinise the ANPS properly, which means a debate and a vote. I very much hope he will address those questions head-on today.
Back in January 2025, the Chancellor staked her “growth credentials” on this huge project. This kind of infrastructure project needs both economic credibility and economic and political stability. We cannot have another HS2, where half the project gets cancelled a decade down the line—too much is at risk. With the week we have just had, I cannot see how this Chancellor and this Government can seriously be trusted to see through a project that could take a decade or more to build. The Minister must follow the evidence and put a stop to this expansion before it is too late, for the sake of taxpayers, for the sake of our local communities and for the sake of our environment.
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. If he does not mind my saying so, I think he may have a slightly over-inflated expectation of my powers as a junior Minister in the Department for Transport to compel a change in Heathrow airport’s ownership structure. What I am pleased to say is that there is broad support for the principle of expansion, irrespective of the fact that the Government have set this as a key priority to generate growth and prosperity in the United Kingdom. I will certainly take his suggestion on board, but I am pleased to say that I think the onus is there to ensure that the project is realised, irrespective of the ownership model that may exist.
To turn back briefly to the DCO process, the Government are working at pace to ensure that the ANPS constitutes a robust framework under which any successful promoter must meet the four tests and the requirements under the Planning Act 2008—a position we have consistently maintained since the Government’s initial announcement in support of expansion last year.
I would like to touch on some of the general points raised during the debate on the potential impact of Heathrow expansion, but two small points of detail were originally raised that I would like to address first. First, on the introduction of a civil aviation Bill, the Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill is a Lords Bill and I am pleased to confirm that it was introduced today. Secondly, on the principle of night flights, the hon. Member for Richmond Park will know that the current night flight restrictions at Heathrow are in place until 2028, but we intend to consult next year on proposals for the period that follows.
Although the ANPS review is ongoing and limits what can be said in detail at this stage, I want to reassure the House that both Parliament and constituents will have the formal opportunity to engage when the amended draft ANPS is published for consultation and undergoes parliamentary scrutiny.
Heathrow expansion is a private sector project and the Government have been clear that it must be privately financed. Taxpayers will not bear the cost of expansion. The Government are working with the Civil Aviation Authority to ensure that flying out of Heathrow will be affordable and that any increases to fares during expansion are minimised. Protecting the interests of consumers is the CAA’s priority and keeping costs affordable will always be a part of the CAA’s considerations.
Munira Wilson
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. Just before he got on to the cost point, he confirmed that the ANPS will receive parliamentary scrutiny. Can he clarify for the House whether that means a debate and a vote on the Floor of the House?
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. Once the ANPS is laid in Parliament, there is a 21 sitting day consideration period during which the House of Commons can resolve that a vote can be called on whether to approve the ANPS. There is also the important principle of Select Committee scrutiny. It is for the Liaison Committee, I believe, to determine which Committee is most appropriate to take forward Select Committee-level analysis of the implications of the ANPS, and to take oral evidence and so on. That process is all to come and will be folded into a robust process of parliamentary scrutiny that the Government fully support taking place through the Select Committee process.
It is our view that expansion could inject billions into our economy, support thousands of apprenticeships, and strengthen Heathrow’s status as a global passenger and airfreight hub. It should also deliver major benefits for passengers, including reduced delays and, ultimately, lower fares when compared with a world where Heathrow does not expand. The Government have been clear that any Heathrow expansion needs to demonstrate that it can contribute to economic growth, and as part of the ANPS review the Department is developing analysis on the economic impacts of Heathrow expansion, the outcome of which will be published for consultation alongside the outcome of the ANPS review.
On the matter of climate commitments, the Government are clear that Heathrow expansion must align with our climate obligations. That is something that the Government remain absolutely committed to. The increasing carbon emissions associated with Heathrow do not in themselves mean that airport expansion cannot take place; the important point is that the Government remain able to meet their carbon reduction targets in the round. Economy-wide net zero and carbon budgets mean that even if emissions rise in one area, such as aviation, they must be fully balanced by either further carbon savings or high-quality and permanent greenhouse gas removals elsewhere.
The Government published their plan for delivering carbon budgets 4 to 6 on 29 October 2025, including on aviation, and we will be legislating for the carbon budget 7 target shortly. The current ANPS sets expectations on measures to mitigate the carbon impact of expansion at Heathrow, and those mitigations are being considered as part of the ANPS review.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) mentioned commitments around noise, which are incredibly important. We recognise the concern among communities that a new runway has the potential to cause an increase in noise. The current ANPS provides clear requirements on noise mitigation that any scheme should meet. That includes a scheduled night flight ban of 6.5 hours, between the hours of 11 pm and 7 am, a runway alternation scheme that provides affected communities with predictable periods of respite, and a noise envelope with clear noise performance targets that we will review as part of the ANPS.
On the two studies that the hon. Member for Twickenham referenced, I can confirm that they will be both be published shortly, and that hon. Members will be able to consider them fully alongside the ANPS process. There will be full transparency on the Government’s work to understand the impact of noise on both her constituents and people who live in proximity of airports across the country. We will consider those and other mitigations as part of the ANPS review.
On a separate note, Heathrow expansion could also make it easier for aircraft to land without extensive holding patterns, bringing some noise and carbon benefits. The review of the ANPS will consider whether any change is required to the noise impacts and mitigations set out in the original document.
The Government have consistently made it clear that air quality obligations must be met. The current ANPS sets out clear air quality requirements, and as part of the ongoing review of the ANPS we will consider whether any changes are required to the air quality impacts and mitigation measures contained within it.
Turning to the important reference that my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) made to surface access, how people get to and from Heathrow airport is vitally important, and will be a key consideration as part of any plans for expansion. Plans must look to mitigate the impact on local and national transport networks. As part of the ANPS review we are considering the Government’s strategic objectives for surface access, including public transport mode share targets and measures to minimise and mitigate the effect of expansion on existing surface access arrangements.
Any promoter that wants to deliver expansion will need to model the impact of expansion on roads around the airport, including the M25, as part of their application, and consult with National Highways on their plans. As I previously mentioned, Heathrow expansion will be financed through private funding. That includes surface access improvements necessary for the expanded airport, including potential rail links.
To touch briefly on the matter of parliamentary scrutiny, it is imperative that we listen carefully to everyone’s views on this transformative and landmark piece of infrastructure. Its impact will be felt for decades to come, and it has the potential to unlock significant economic benefits that could be felt across the United Kingdom. However, we fully recognise that there will be communities who have understandable concerns about what this could mean for them, and that is why the Government are launching a formal consultation on the drafted ANPS by the summer.
Oral Answers to Questions
Munira Wilson Excerpts(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend continues to robustly defend the interests of his constituents to have the rail services that they deserve. If he writes to me with the detail of those proposals, I will ensure that the Rail Minister gives him a fulsome response.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
The Department launched the review of the airports national policy statement in October 2025, and selected a single scheme to inform that review in November. We are reviewing the ANPS swiftly but thoroughly, and we intend to consult on any revisions by the summer.
Munira Wilson
The Environmental Audit Committee recently found
“that the Government is proceeding without the necessary evidence base to sufficiently underpin its economic arguments for airport expansion.”
Now senior figures in the airline industry are warning about serious economic consequences of the unaffordable, eye-watering costs that will be passed on to their passengers. Will the Minister now admit that the maths for Heathrow expansion simply does not add up, and that the project is about saving the Chancellor’s economic credibility when her other policies are undermining growth?
Keir Mather
The hon. Lady asks about the case for Heathrow expansion and collecting the data in reference to that. The ANPS review will do exactly that, reflecting changes in legislation, policy and analysis since the current ANPS was designated in 2018. It will ensure that any proposed scheme for expansion at Heathrow will be consistent with air quality obligations and will contribute to economic growth across the entirety of the United Kingdom.
Railways Bill
Munira Wilson ExcerptsTuesday 9th December 2025
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Railways Bill 2024-26 View all Railways Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Two centuries ago, the first passenger railway services to run in the UK symbolised the hope and ambition of a confident nation, yet today that same railway symbolises something rather different. Every cancelled service, every cramped carriage and every dodgy wi-fi connection reflects not only a railway that has been beset by years of dysfunction, but a transport network, an economy and, indeed, a whole country in desperate need of renewal. It is therefore little wonder that at the last election millions of people voted for change, voting for a party that committed to bring train services back into public ownership—a service that would put passengers before profit.
No one should underestimate how seriously this Government take the instruction of the British people. The King’s Speech set out no fewer than five transport Bills. Two have already received Royal Assent, and this Railways Bill is the third. After years of spiralling rail costs yet plummeting performance, years of promises of rail reform that never saw the light of day, and years of an industry run at the altar of private profit over the public good, today we kick-start the biggest shake-up of our railways in a generation. This landmark Bill means that Britain will finally have a railway owned by the public for the public—one that puts passengers first, that seizes the opportunities of freight, that offers a better deal for taxpayers and, above all, that is greater than the sum of its parts.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Secretary of State is extolling the virtues of nationalisation. South Western Railway, which serves my constituents across Teddington, Twickenham, Hampton and Whitton, was nationalised earlier this year. We have only seen the service get worse and worse, with delays, cancellations and short-form trains leading to overcrowding. When can my constituents expect a better service as a result of her policies?
Heidi Alexander
The hon. Lady is right to say that South Western Railway had a difficult few months after it came into public ownership, but the problems that it is experiencing were inherited from the private sector operator. The number of new Arterio trains on the South Western Railway network has quadrupled since the train operating company came into public ownership, and there have been, on average, fewer cancellations in the directly operated service than there were in the privately run service.
Heathrow: National Airports Review
Munira Wilson Excerpts(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Heidi Alexander
How people get to and from an airport is as important as the number of planes landing and taking off, so I can give my hon. Friend an assurance that we will look at these issues closely. I point out that Transport for London is buying a new fleet of Piccadilly line trains that have higher capacity. It is part of a larger fleet replacement programme, and 10 new Elizabeth line trains are also being built. We will look at the whole issue of how people get to and from the airport, because I agree that it is absolutely vital.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Chancellor has staked her economic credibility and growth strategy on a third runway at Heathrow. The Secretary of State said that she is committed to seeing flights take off from it in 2035, yet at the same time, she talks about taking an evidence-led approach, putting this project to her four tests, taking the advice of the Climate Change Committee and doing a thorough economic and environmental impact assessment. Could she clarify a point for the House, because I fear my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) did not get a straight answer? If the evidence shows that the environmental costs are too great and the economic benefits are too little, will she and, crucially, her Chancellor be prepared to do a U-turn and can this whole project?
Heidi Alexander
We see the huge opportunities and benefits associated with expanding capacity at Heathrow and having a third runway there. There will be a thorough process, which we are starting today by reviewing the policy framework in which any planning application will be judged. The Planning Inspectorate will look at that and consider all the issues to do with economic need, air quality, noise and carbon, and then a decision will be taken. We have an ambition to see planes taking off from the runway in 2035, but that does not mean that we will not have a thorough process. We are committed to that, and that is what I am setting out today.
Disruption at Heathrow
Munira Wilson Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Heidi Alexander
My hon. Friend has made a fair point, and I am happy to give him that undertaking.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I again urge the Secretary of State not to divorce the question of expansion from what has happened here. Surely what this incident, crippling Europe’s busiest airport, shows us is that we need a better Heathrow, not a bigger Heathrow. We need to focus on the infrastructure in and around Heathrow, to improve resilience, security and the passenger experience. While a third runway may not increase the likelihood of such an incident, the impact of such an incident will be all the greater if she continues to put all our aviation eggs in one basket.
Heidi Alexander
Let me assure the hon. Lady that I am not putting all the country’s aviation eggs in one basket. At the moment we do not have proposals before us for a third runway at Heathrow. We will look at those proposals carefully when they are submitted and ensure that any decisions about either the airports national policy statement or any subsequent development consent order are taken in line with our environmental obligations on things such as carbon, air pollution and noise. Consideration of the resilience of the infrastructure will be part of that.
Airport Expansion
Munira Wilson Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Kane
I re-emphasise that there is no development consent order for Heathrow at the moment. We know that for all airports, surface access is essential. The public transport penetration rate within an hour is key to the markets that airports can access from across the planet to support their growth. We have a world-class transport system in the south-east, but in any development consent order, Heathrow or its related parties will have to prove how we can get new people to that site.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
If, as we expect, the Chancellor announces her support tomorrow for a third runway at Heathrow, that will be a massive U-turn from the Prime Minister’s previous position, and it is patently clear that a third runway will fail all of Labour’s four tests—on growth across our regions, on climate, on air pollution, and on noise pollution. The economic and environmental cases are in tatters, and no airlines want to foot the bill for a third runway. Will the Minister concede that any such announcement would simply be virtue signalling by a Chancellor in search of growth where she will not achieve it, and would damage our environment and our communities at the same time?
Mike Kane
I support the Chancellor’s pursuit of growth. For too long, we have been stagnant, and we know that this area can provide growth. I have seen that in my constituency, as I have pointed out. Where was the hon. Member when we talked about sustainable aviation fuels? Where was she when we committed £63 million to the advanced fuels fund to help the SAF industry grow in this country? We have announced £1 billion for the Aerospace Technology Institute to look at zero emission flights. Would it not be great if, one day, a Minister could stand here and say that all internal flights will be zero-emission? I want to leave my successor, whoever they are, the opportunity to say that within the next decade.
Aircraft Noise: Local Communities
Munira Wilson Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a pleasure to finally begin the Adjournment debate. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for granting this important and timely debate.
As the MP for a very vocal airport community, I welcome the Minister to his role and reassure him that he will be hearing from me a great deal over the coming Parliament. This topic is close to my constituents’ hearts. Every morning, at 4.30 am, they hear jet engines above their heads; every year, a Heathrow airport executive threatens to bring back the third runway; and every decade, a new proposal to change the flight paths is put forward.
My constituents are not alone. In the UK, more than 23% of the British population live between two and 10 miles from an airport. Although they accept that aircraft noise is a fact of life, they should not be asked to tolerate constant attempts to increase the number of flights above their homes. In the opening months of this new Parliament, Labour has a chance to step away from the damaging policies of the past and build a new relationship with airport communities—a relationship in which the needs of local people and our environment are genuinely balanced against the demands of the aviation industry.
To begin rebalancing the relationship, I urge the Department for Transport to consider three requests: first, to acknowledge the health impacts of night flights on airport communities and work to ban them above heavily populated areas; secondly, to accept that the expansion of Heathrow airport would fly in the face of Britain’s climate targets and have an unacceptable impact on my constituents in Richmond Park and elsewhere across London and the south-east; and thirdly, to recognise that any proposals to change flight paths above London and the south-east should be accompanied by a proposal for a “do minimum” approach, ensuring that people do not have to accept change merely for the sake of change.
I turn first to night flights, which are the most intrusive form of aircraft noise. There is clear evidence that they harm the physical health of residents who live under flight paths. Long-term exposure to nocturnal aircraft noise is strongly linked to sleep disorders and broader health impacts.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way on that point and for securing this incredibly important debate. Like her constituents, the residents of Twickenham, Teddington, Whitton and the Hamptons are very concerned about the impact of aircraft noise above them. Does she agree that, given that the Civil Aviation Authority itself has acknowledged evidence that long-term aircraft noise has a harmful effect on children’s memory, sustained attention, reading comprehension and reading ability, for the sake of their health we need strict restrictions on night flights across our constituencies and all of west London? Frankly, at the moment these massive jet engines are flouting the rules overnight on a regular basis.
Sarah Olney
My hon. Friend is right. She speaks passionately on behalf of her constituents in Twickenham, who I know are blighted by these issues just as much as my constituents in Richmond Park. She is right about the health impacts of long-term exposure to nocturnal aircraft noise, which is strongly linked to sleep disorders and broader health impacts.
For each additional 10 dB of night-time aircraft noise that communities are exposed to, there is an increase of between 14% and 69% in residents’ risk of high blood pressure, increasing the risk of strokes and heart attacks. Other researchers have found links between long-term exposure to aircraft noise and an increased risk of obesity, depression and cardiovascular issues.
The human cost of these flights is substantial, but when I have raised this issue in the House, Ministers have fallen back on a study by York Aviation that argued that night flights add billions to our economy. That study has been repeatedly challenged on both its outcomes and methodology, and I urge the Minister to instruct his officials to examine the wider body of evidence.
Researchers at the transport research service and consultancy CE Delft found that a ban on night flights would harm the national economy only if the passengers who currently arrive on scheduled flights before 6 am were not transferred to other flights. In addition, the Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise has pointed out that estimates of the value of night flights often massage definitions of night-time jobs, which inflate key figures. In the light of that, I urge the Government to commit to commissioning a full independent analysis on the impact of night flights on our economy, residents’ physical health and local people’s mental wellbeing, to inform a potential ban on night flights at Heathrow.
While night flights are a constant concern to my residents, the spectre of the third runway continues to hang over south-west London. Hansard shows that the third runway has been mentioned no fewer than 115 times in this House, and has been the topic of three debates, two early-day motions and countless open letters. Despite the efforts of dozens of MPs, the last Government resolutely refused to abandon the project. They said that we should ignore the 210 million tonnes of carbon dioxide that it would generate every year, the £100 billion it would cost to clean up the damage that the runway would do to our environment, and the impact it would have on air quality in our communities.
Munira Wilson
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no way that this Government can meet their net zero and climate commitments if they give the green light to a third runway at Heathrow, as has been widely reported? Indeed, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero has been on record in the past as having been very against a third runway at Heathrow. He should be fighting the corner of the environment and our planet, and the health and wellbeing of our constituents, by standing up to the Department for Transport’s giving any green light to a third runway at Heathrow.
Sarah Olney
Again, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the past week the Prime Minister gave new impetus to the achievement of our net zero targets, and it is essential that we have another look at the damage that a third runway would cause at Heathrow. We must seriously re-examine the case for proceeding and, as my hon. Friend says, also look at the impact it would have on our communities.
A meta-analysis of 70 studies published between 2000 and 2020 has shown that researchers consistently find elevated levels of ultra-fine particulate matter in airport communities. Constant exposure to those particulates can lead to decreased lung function, oxidative DNA damage, and premature death. Allowing the third runway and the 260,000 flights that it will add to London’s skies is not only an annoyance to residents; it is a risk to their health.
The third runway would have further far-reaching consequences other than simply tainting the air that my constituents breathe. At COP29 this week, the Prime Minister vowed to cut UK emissions by 81% before 2035, but his own Chancellor has refused to take the third runway off the table. I know from reading the 115 references to the third runway in Hansard that Ministers from both main parties are happy to avoid answering questions from Opposition MPs. For that reason I urge the Minister to consider the words of his colleague, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, who said:
“I raise the issue of the Heathrow third runway gingerly, but if we are so serious about this climate emergency, I do not see how we cannot look at all the things that the Government and the private sector are doing and ask whether they make sense in a net zero world.”—[Official Report, 24 June 2019; Vol. 662 , c. 522.]
In the last Division on the third runway, seven members of the current Cabinet, including the Prime Minister, opposed expansion. I urge the Minister to work across Departments to ensure that Government policy reflects their commitments to our local communities and our planet before any decision on the third runway is made.
Finally, night flights and the third runway have been constant sources of concern to my residents over the past decade, but they must now contend with the Government’s new proposals for airspace modernisation. Although I understand that the proposals are intended to improve efficiency at the airport and bring aviation in London into the 21st century, I ask for caution. Last year, the London Assembly passed a motion calling on the airport to recognise the damage that its proposals would have on Richmond Park’s wildlife and ecology. The motion highlighted that redirecting 60,000 planes over London’s largest nature reserve flies in the face of decades of conservation efforts. Indeed, the noise from long-haul flights and the additional pollution from fuel dumping could change that fragile ecosystem for years to come.
At the same time, airspace modernisation would lay the groundwork for an increase in the number of aircraft movements at Heathrow, and expose new communities across south-west London to aircraft noise directly above their homes for the first time. The proposed UK airspace design service will of course help to guide the development of those new flight paths, but it is essential that the public are given a genuine chance to choose between the proposals. When the proposed flight path systems are put to public consultation next year, I urge the Minister to ensure that residents can choose a “do minimum” option. New guidance systems can be integrated, and small amendments to current systems made, but ultimately there should be an option to maintain the path in a roughly similar location. We should not ask communities simply to accept change for the sake of change. They deserve a real choice over the future of their skies, rather than a forced decision between bad options.
London is one of the most overflown capital cities in the western world. Hundreds of thousands of Londoners across the city experience the negative impacts of aircraft noise, yet the Government tiptoe around real measures that would improve residents’ lives. By banning night flights, abandoning the third runway, and giving our constituents a genuine choice over the positioning of flight paths, Ministers would demonstrate to London’s airport communities that we are being heard. The previous Government’s policy on the aviation sector was marked by an inability to stand up for the rights of communities in the face of Heathrow and other airports. The Minister now has a chance to be better than his predecessors, to put people before profit, and to consider what is really best for the capital and airport communities across the UK.
Mike Kane
I will come to that, and I look forward to meeting the hon. Member, because I would like to have a safe cycle ride around Richmond Park one of these days. I will be raising that with the constituency MP, and I think it could help with climate mitigation and climate change. I look forward to her views on that.
As I have acknowledged, noise from aircraft, particularly at night, impacts on local communities. At the same time, night flights are also a vital part of global aviation and provide significant economic benefit, not just to the capital city but, as we know, to the whole of the UK. The whole UK relies on Heathrow as our only hub airport to keep the flow of people, goods and services moving, supporting thousands of jobs as a result. With that in mind, for several decades the Government have set out noise controls, including restrictions on night operations at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted.
The House can imagine my surprise, on becoming the new Minister, to realise that I had direct powers over the south-east three, and no powers over the rest of the nation. That will hopefully change in the years to come. Those airports are designated for noise purposes under the Civil Aviation Act 1982. That control reflects the need to balance the impacts on communities with the benefits to the UK economy. We also know that Heathrow is one of our major hub airports for cargo and freight to keep this country fuelled, supplied and fed. At other airports, the noise controls are set by local ordinance and local competent planning authorities.
The current night-flight regime limits the number of flights for the purpose of noise management. The night-flight restrictions significantly reduce the number of flights that could otherwise operate within the night quota period between 11.30 pm and 6 am. Earlier this year, the Department for Transport consulted on proposals for the next night-flight regime at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports, which will commence in October 2025, a year or so from now. The consultation proposes that movements and quota limits for Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted would remain the same as now for a three-year period covering October 2025 to October 2028. That is while we await evidence that could support change in the future. I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park for her response to the consultation, and I hope soon to be in a position to announce a decision on the next night-flight regime.
At Heathrow, the number of movements permitted in the night quota period has not changed for many years. During that time, aircraft have become quieter, as I said at the start of the speech, and the overall noise footprint of the airport has shrunk. Progress has been made. At Heathrow, for example, between 2006 and 2019, there was a reduction of 21% in the number of households exposed to aircraft noise within the London 55 dB noise contour area. The noise footprint of new-generation aircrafts, such as the Airbus A350 and the Boeing 737 MAX, is typically 50% smaller on departure and 30% smaller on arrival than the aircraft they are replacing. I talk with manufacturers all the time about the future of flight and how we can carry on reducing the noise footprint of these vehicles. Overall, noise from aircraft movements is expected to continue to fall in the future compared with today’s levels.
I will briefly touch on airspace modernisation, which is a key plank of our manifesto. It is one of our key commitments, along with sustainable aviation fuel. We have an analogue system in our skies in the UK in a digital age. The system was designed closer to the time that Yuri Gagarin went into space than today. A pilot who travelled through time, coming in the TARDIS back to the future, would still be flying the same flight paths that they would recognise from more than 60, 70 or 80 years ago. That has to change if we are to maximise the benefits to aviation and growth and the carbon reduction we could bring, if we just got the flights not to circle over the hon. Member’s constituency, but to fly in a straight line point-to-point.
Munira Wilson
I heard the Minister from a sedentary position call my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) a luddite when she made her point about airspace modernisation.
Munira Wilson
Yes, I am afraid so. The Minister is making the point that we need modernisation. I say to him respectfully that I, my hon. Friend and our constituents recognise the need for innovation and to move with technology as it changes. Of course we want to reduce carbon emissions, and we support a better Heathrow—not a bigger Heathrow—as we understand its importance to the economy, but on airspace modernisation we could still achieve some of the benefits by adopting a “do minimum” approach, gaining benefits from modernisation while not coming up with lots of new flight paths and really intensifying noise over certain areas that might not be overflown at the moment. We have seen how in other countries airspace modernisation has led to noise sewers. Will he offer reassurance to the residents of Teddington, Twickenham, the Hamptons and St Margarets that those places will not end up becoming noise sewers? Will he please commit to a “do minimum” approach and transparency on the process?
Mike Kane
Not for a moment did I suggest that the hon. Members would throw their sabots—as in sabotage—into the mill to grind it up. I do expect co-operation on this. I think that we can make life better for all people, and a rising tide floats all boats. The process will be open and transparent. I have already announced the setting up of the UK airspace design service, which will go out for consultation. I expect Members to be fully involved in shaping its work over the next few years.
As we look to decarbonise our skies and improve them in the ways I just mentioned, there is so much to be gained. We can move on Scottish airspace and northern England airspace. We are already moving on south-west airspace. The south-east will be the hard bit to crack, and that is why the service will focus on that. I hope that we can work together to get that done, hopefully in this Parliament; if not, hopefully early in the next one.
The Government recognise the impact that aviation noise can have on local communities. At the same time, we live in a fully interconnected global world, and the aviation sector has material value for the UK economy. The Government continue to strive for the correct balance between the impacts of aviation on the local community and the economic benefits that flight brings.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Munira Wilson Excerpts(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Secretary of State will be aware that the courts yesterday awarded £25 million of compensation to 1.4 million passengers who were overcharged for rail fares between 2015 and 2017 by Stagecoach South Western Trains, the predecessor franchise to South Western Railway. Will he ensure that affected passengers are not left out of pocket, and get automatic redress, rather than having to make an historical claim?
Huw Merriman
I have been meeting the operators to discuss the matter. I am happy to write to her, setting out the exact conclusion of those conversations. I am always keen to ensure that passenger and consumer interests are protected and preserved, so I will write to her.
Transport
Munira Wilson Excerpts(2 years, 2 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Anthony Browne
On noise, it is important to strike a balance between the negative impacts of aviation on local communities who live close to the airport and the economic benefits of flights around the UK. We will shortly publish the results of a consultation on night flights, and the hon. Member should wait for it.
[Official Report, 8 February 2024, Vol. 745, c. 361.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne):
An error has been identified in the response to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) in Transport questions. My response should have been:
Oral Answers to Questions
Munira Wilson Excerpts(2 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Guy Opperman
My hon. Friend is right to raise that point. It is absolutely vital that the great British public stop throwing litter—that would be the first and most important thing. I can assure him that National Highways is utterly committed on this matter, and gave evidence to the Transport Committee about the dozens and dozens of people it has clearing up the litter every single day. However, it is fundamentally up to the public to stop littering.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Anthony Browne
On noise, it is important to strike a balance between the negative impacts of aviation on local communities who live close to the airport and the economic benefits of flights around the UK. We will shortly publish the results of a consultation on night flights, and the hon. Member should wait for it.