Heathrow Airport: Third Runway

Sarah Olney 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.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

rose—

Hammersmith Bridge

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. Although I heartily congratulate the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) on securing this debate and on her excellent opening speech, I know she shares with me the sincere wish that, before the end of our parliamentary careers, we may one day be able to stop talking about Hammersmith bridge. I fully acknowledge the severe consequences that the closure of the bridge has had on the hon. Lady’s constituents in Putney, but, obviously, my constituents in Richmond Park, where the bridge lands on the southern bank, have also faced extreme disruption and reduced opportunities as a result of the closure.

It was seven years ago this month that Hammersmith bridge closed to traffic, and it has not reopened since. That means that for seven years buses have not been able to cross the bridge; emergency ambulance journeys from Barnes, in my constituency, to Charing Cross hospital, on the northern bank of the Thames, have taken significantly longer; and local businesses and families have suffered. Since 2019, Hammersmith and Fulham council has spent nearly £50 million just to maintain the bridge, while successive Governments have failed to act. That is disgraceful. The failure to repair Hammersmith bridge has become a matter of national embarrassment.

In the lead-up to the 2019 general election, the then Secretary of State for Transport, Grant Shapps, said about the bridge:

“The next Conservative Government will not allow this just to remain closed.”

I imagine that that comment was made with the intention of supporting the Conservative candidate’s bid for re-election in my constituency of Richmond Park, but nothing then happened. The Conservatives had five years to take action, but the business case for fixing the bridge sat on their desks for years without being picked up, and they did not even bother to reconvene the taskforce during their last three years in office.

All the while, the estimated costs of repairing the bridge doubled. In 2022, after the bridge had to be wrapped in tin foil to prevent it from collapsing, I pleaded with the Conservative Government to release the funds for the bridge’s repairs. At that point, the repairs were estimated at £140 million. Now, estimates put the cost of repairs at £250 million. If the Conservatives had kept their promise, they could have saved the taxpayer more than £100 million.

The failure of the Conservatives to act has had real-life impacts: Hammersmith fire station still officially serves Barnes, despite it taking 25 minutes to attend a fire in Castelnau. Even the temporary bus routes put in place to connect Barnes and Hammersmith have been cut, and many women and students feel unsafe walking over the bridge in the dark on their return from work or school in the winter months. Barnes residents deserve better.

The last Conservative Government were characterised by lies, scandals and a complete disregard for the public; their contempt for the public was evident, whether they were partying while people could not visit sick relatives in hospital or crashing our economy. It is hardly surprising that breaking their promise to fix Hammersmith bridge was merely a footnote.

Labour has now had a chance to right this wrong, but I have been disappointed by the Government’s lack of engagement on this matter. Despite my cautious optimism following the reconvening of the taskforce in January 2025, there has been almost radio silence on plans to fix the bridge. That was until two months ago, when the Local Transport Minister remarked that Hammersmith bridge would be an excellent candidate for funding via the Government’s structures fund. The sceptic in me worries that that is lip service to residents prior to the local elections, but I am choosing to be hopeful. I believe that this Government are serious about fixing a problem that impacts my constituents in Barnes, East Sheen and Mortlake every day.

In the past year, I have written to the Department for Transport five times to request a meeting, and each time, my request has been refused. I say to the Minister today: I do not want to play politics with Hammersmith bridge. Reopening it to emergency vehicles and buses is what my residents want, and like everyone else in the room, I was elected to serve my constituents.

Local activists have joined me in protests and succeeded in keeping the repair of the bridge on the agenda. It is my duty as their MP to amplify their voices and to ensure that they remain up to date with the Government’s latest plans, but I cannot keep local residents informed about developments if the Department for Transport does not engage with me. Transparency is a key tenet of governance, and I am extremely disappointed that local residents have not been afforded it for over seven years. They need answers about the Government’s plans.

When will the Hammersmith bridge taskforce reconvene? What criteria are the Government using to assess candidates for the structures fund? Have funding agreements been reached among Hammersmith and Fulham council, Transport for London and the Department for Transport? When will the Government announce whether funding will be provided for Hammersmith bridge via the structures fund? The list goes on, and so, for the sixth time, I request a meeting with the Minister to discuss the future of Hammersmith’s bridge.

Airport Drop-off Charges

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I absolutely agree.

I want to discuss the realities in Bolton. There is a direct rail link from Bolton to Manchester airport; a typical journey time is about 36 to 45 minutes and, at off-peak times, a single ticket can be found for anywhere between £4 and £9. There is also a direct coach from Bolton interchange, which takes about 65 minutes; generally, prices range from £6 to £12. For many travellers, these options work, and we should promote and protect them, but they do not work for everyone. For a family of four with two large suitcases and a pushchair, or for people catching a very early flight or arriving back late at night, public transport is not always practical.

For those who drive, the maze of choices remains problematic. The airport provides a free drop-off at JetParks with a shuttle to terminals. That works for some people, but it is further away, involves a transfer and is simply not suitable for those with mobility needs or heavy luggage.

We should also reflect on governance and accountability. Manchester airport is part of the Manchester Airports Group, which has a unique ownership structure combining public and private shareholders. Manchester city council owns 35.5%, IFM Investors owns 35.5% and the nine other Greater Manchester councils, including Bolton, together own 29%. That public stake brings with it the responsibility to treat passengers fairly.

What should the Government do? Many of my constituents would say that the answer is simple: scrap drop-off charges altogether, or at least introduce a short free period for pick-ups and drop-offs. I recognise that all airports differ in size and layout, and one solution may not fit all, but there is a clear and proportionate role for Government in setting expectations around fairness, transparency and consumer protection.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech; I am grateful that she has secured this debate. Airports are imposing drop-off charges primarily to increase profits, despite their stated claims of environmental benefits. On the point about transparency, when I inquired of Heathrow how many cars are using its drop-off point each year, it declined to answer. It said that the data was classified as “commercially sensitive”. If it truly believes that raising drop-off charges has a positive impact on customers’ transport decisions and provides environmental benefits, why is it reluctant to share that data?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I totally agree. Later in my speech, I will be asking for more detail about what happens with drop-off charges, as well as other information that we need from airports, such as how many people have had fixed penalty notices.

Secondly, there should be national guidance on simple and consistent signage at all airports for parking charges and fees. Thirdly, the barrierless system for dropping off and parking should come with clear payment prompts at the point of exit and, where possible, a reasonable reminder rather than an immediate penalty for first-time non-payment.

Heathrow: National Airports Review

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

I can tell my hon. Friend that the current ANPS sets out very clear requirements on noise that any scheme would have to meet. We will review those requirements alongside any necessary mitigation requirements, and we will consult on any changes. I should also say that the rules around the operation of a night flight ban, including the exact timings of such a ban, would be defined in consultation with local communities and relevant stakeholders.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

The DFT’s own updated appraisal report shows that the economic benefits of a third runway are either exaggerated or misguided. The Labour Government are yet to produce their economic analysis. Meanwhile, Heathrow Airport Ltd is in more than £15 billion-worth of debt and its own proposal has increased in cost by 50% since 2016. What makes the Secretary of State so confident that private financing will be found not just for the proposals on the table, but for all the surface transport upgrades that will be required?

[Heidi Alexander]

The two promoters that remain in the scheme will be responsible for securing private investment, and they have expressed to me confidence that the scheme can go forward. I also gently point out to the hon. Lady that there is huge support for this expansion among the business community: the Confederation of British Industry, the Federation of Small Businesses and the British Chambers of Commerce all support Heathrow expansion, as do regional business groups across the UK.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Ind)]

This year, Petroineos—that is, Jim Ratcliffe’s Ineos and PetroChina from the Chinese state—closed the Grangemouth oil refinery. Closure was not about some passionate quest for net zero. Closure happened because private capital and a foreign Government owned vital energy infrastructure, and because corporate profits are more important than community good to the billionaire Jim Ratcliffes of this world. There were 435 jobs lost at the refinery, and hundreds more lost in the shared services that are housed on site; 2,822 jobs were lost in the wider supply chain. That is mass de-industrialisation.

But closure is not just about job losses. The exodus of talented, skilled workers is awful, but closure also means that the site is no longer a positive destination for many local young people leaving school. We have seen an end to a generational employer in my community. The economic consequences are also absolutely enormous for local Grangemouth businesses, which relied on the custom of refinery workers and their families. Once again, I want to give credit to all the small local businesses that have kept town centres going in recent years. The pressure of running a small business when austerity and the cost of living crisis have hammered people’s disposable incomes can be all-consuming and incredibly stressful. I should know; I tried it for some years.

The economic turmoil of stopping refining is also a national issue, because the refinery was worth more than £400 million per annum to the Scottish economy. Politicians often talk about black holes. Well, that is a sizeable, industrial-shaped black hole to fill. I do not doubt that the Government understand the magnitude of how important it is to re-industrialise communities like mine in Grangemouth. The other day, I read my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), who has done so much work to bring this Bill to the House, describing in Hansard the situation that he grew up in on the east side of Manchester, which lost its chemical and mining industries. He said:

“We are still getting over that in my great city.”––[Official Report, Sustainable Aviation Fuel Public Bill Committee, 17 July 2025; c. 108.]

He undoubtedly understands the social consequences of industry finishing up. No community can afford this continued spiral of industrial decline.

To go back to my original point, we have for decades been an economy controlled by private capital, multinational corporations and foreign Governments whose policy has been to make things elsewhere, and to sell here. Have the last four decades not shown that the country’s complete reliance on private capital means profits over people? We must adopt a new industrial strategy that meets the needs of working people and their communities by securing at least some form of public ownership of the new industries that we will need—that is a mainstream political view.

The Government must learn lessons to stop history repeating itself, and to prevent workers and communities having every last ounce of work extracted from them before they are discarded on a corporate whim. For the Government to create and benefit economically from the necessary green industrial revolution, which we need for our economy and for the planet, some form of Government ownership of future industries is necessary. Surely, that view should be at the heart of any Labour Government.

If the Government want to put their faith in private capital to mould Britain’s new industrial future, I urge them to think again. They need to be more active in the process of creating Grangemouth’s industrial future. They need to seize the initiative and invest in workers, communities industry and Scottish manufacturing. Producing sustainable aviation fuel is an enormous objective—one that we have committed to—and sites like Grangemouth are ideally placed for it. The infrastructure needs some degree of conversion and upgrade, of course, but it is there. The workforce and expertise are there. My local community needs to be re-industrialised. The Labour Government have ambitious SAF targets to meet, but, more importantly, they also have obligations to communities in our forgotten industrial heartlands.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

New clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), would require the Government to publish a report within six months of securing the supply of bioethanol for sustainable aviation fuel production. The Government have repeatedly cited the increased use of SAF as the answer to questions about how the UK will meet our net zero targets while expanding multiple airports in London. It was wishful thinking nine months ago, but that argument has now dissolved almost into impossibility. Not only did the summer proposal submitted by Heathrow Airport Holdings for a third runway include a request to add nearly 300,000 flights to our airspace each year, but the concerns regarding the production of SAF have become more prominent. That concern has grown following China’s implementation of its own SAF mandate, which will result in it using more of its production domestically. That will undoubtedly cause a challenge for the UK given that over 90% of our current SAF is imported from China.

The challenges to the UK’s ability to produce and import SAF were underscored by the Climate Change Committee’s recent report, which estimated that only 17% of the UK’s aviation industry will be using SAF by 2040. That is 5% lower than the Government’s own 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 expansions. In fact, in 2024 only 10% of bioethanol certified as renewable and consumed in the UK was produced domestically. That was down from 17% in 2023 and 15% in 2022—a concerning trend and one that the Government must report back on.

In addition, the UK-US trade deal presents a threat to the UK’s domestic bioethanol production, as the agreement removed tariffs on US ethanol and replaced it with a zero-tariff quota of 1.4 billion litres. The US bioethanol industry is heavily subsidised and its companies will be able to undercut UK bioethanol industries. Vivergo Fuels’ plant in Hull, which had the largest capacity of any UK bioethanol producer, has already closed, with the managing director citing the US-UK trade deal as a significant factor that contributed to the site’s closure.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Simon Lightwood]

The hon. Member will be aware that the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill contains powers to ask local transport authorities to identify specific routes that are of social value and need. That will be particularly important when considering rural areas. She will also be aware that the Department has been supporting a number of design-responsive transport schemes, of which we are undertaking review.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

In my constituency, Hammersmith bridge has been closed to vehicles for over six years. During that time, buses have been unable to cross, emergency vehicles have experienced delays and businesses on both sides of the bridge have lost out. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury was recently unable to confirm on the radio whether the structures fund will be put towards the bridge’s repairs, so will the Minister tell me whether we can expect funding for Hammersmith bridge to reopen?

Airport Expansion

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

The economic benefits of the expansion of London airports remain unproven. On Heathrow, the Department for Transport’s updated appraisal report shows that the net present value of a third runway ranges from just £3.3 billion to minus £2.2 billion, while Heathrow’s finances are of severe concern, due to the significant debt that it has incurred. What new economic analysis have the Government considered that makes a third runway at Heathrow viable when considered alongside their commitments on climate, noise and air quality?

[Mike Kane]

I say again what I said earlier: capacity in London is at 76% on average, and at 95% at Gatwick and Heathrow. What is the Liberal Democrat answer to that? Do we not want people to fly across the world to bang the drum for British business? Do we not want them to visit their friends and family? Are the Liberal Democrats for constraining people’s flying? There are a lot of questions, but no answers from Liberal Democrat Members.

Aircraft Noise: Local Communities

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Thursday 14th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) on securing this debate about the impact of aircraft noise on local communities, and I thank her for her speech. Aviation noise presents a sensitive issue. I grew up under the flight path to Manchester airport, and I remember the BAC one-elevens, the Tridents and Concorde. As a school child I saw the space shuttle do a low pass on a jumbo jet, which inspired me for the rest of my life. Thank God we do not have those planes any more, given the smell that they emitted. However, we need to strike a fair balance between the impact of aviation on the local environment and communities, and the economic benefits that flights bring. That is the challenge for aviation noise policy.

The hon. Lady spoke passionately about the impact of aviation on noise levels, and I recognise that noise from aircraft, particularly at night, impacts on the local community and, as she said, can impact on people’s physical and mental wellbeing. Major airports with more than 50,000 movements per year are obliged under the Environmental Noise (England) Regulations 2006 to produce noise action plans. Noise action plans act as a driver for aircraft noise management and for the mitigation that is required around airports. I am pleased to report that all major airports within scope of the regulations have now produced their noise action plans for 2024 to 2028. With the exception of the noise action plan for Manchester airport in my constituency, which was submitted later, I can confirm that those noise action plans have now been adopted by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

The Heathrow airport noise action plan has been published, following consultation with local stakeholders, as the hon. Lady rightly said. It is supplemented by a commitment to commission and support research, and a focus on improving the way that the airport communicates and engages with local communities. Heathrow sees that last element as pivotal in helping it to understand and address key priorities for local people. Heathrow also has a sustainability plan that covers a wide range of issues related to noise management. The airport has set a clear objective to reduce by 2030 the number of people who are sleep-disturbed and highly annoyed, compared with its baseline of 2019. The airport has been working to develop, test and finalise a new package of noise insulation, vortex protection and home relocation support, known as the quieter neighbourhood support scheme. Heathrow’s residential insulation scheme covers 100% of insulation costs up to £34,000 for homes most affected by noise.

[Sarah Olney]

I am grateful to the Minister for highlighting the various packages that are available for people affected by noise. As he will appreciate, a number of my constituents are in that position, yet many are finding that some of those packages are insufficient and difficult to access. Will he meet me to discuss some of those individual cases?

[Mike Kane]

I am happy to meet all individual Members who want to improve the quality of people’s lives around our ports and airports.

Heathrow uses a differential charging structure for aircraft operating at the airport. The structure encourages the use of best-in-class aircraft, imposing higher charges for noisier aircraft and lower charges for quieter ones. Heathrow encourages the use of quieter planes by adjusting the differential in night and post-midnight charges for unscheduled operations, with the aim of reducing those operations after 11.30 pm.

The Government, too, are committed to research into aviation noise, and two studies are under way. One study that has been commissioned is on the effects of aviation noise on sleep disturbance and annoyance and how they vary at different times at night. The study is a collaboration between St George’s University London, the National Centre for Social Research, Noise Consultants Ltd and the University of Pennsylvania, and is the first study of aviation noise effects on sleep disturbance in the UK for 30 years. The first stage of the aviation night noise effects—“Annie”—study involved a cross-sectional survey of 4,000 people who live near eight UK airports to assess the association between aircraft noise exposure at night and subjective assessments of sleep quality and annoyance. That stage of the study is currently going through peer review, and we expect to publish it next year. The second stage involves an observational study of individuals recruited from the survey to assess the association between aircraft noise exposure and objective sleep quality. That involves assessments of sleep disturbance and sound level measurements in participants’ bedrooms. That stage of the study is currently in the field.

Taken together, these pieces of evidence will be used to inform future policies for managing night-time aviation noise exposure and to assist with the management and mitigation of health impacts on local communities. They will also support any wider assessment of the costs and benefits of night flying. Our priority remains to deliver a high-quality, robust evidence base, and we are taking all the necessary steps to deliver that. We are now working on the basis that we will publish the full evidence base from the “Annie” study in autumn 2026.

[Sarah Olney]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. I am pleased to hear that there will be a proper study of the impact of aviation noise on sleep disruption, and I very much look forward to that publication. He may have missed the early part of my speech, where I asked for a much more robust study of the economic benefits of night flights. Will he comment further on that?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Sarah Olney]

A luddite?

[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?

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Guy Opperman)]

I recently met the council leader, Martin Tett, who is doing a fantastic job, aided by record investment by this Government of £8.3 billion for road resurfacing and our street works consultation, which will crack down on utility organisations and ensure that they work much faster and much better. We are also giving extra funding on an ongoing basis.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

T3. Every day that Hammersmith bridge remains closed is a reminder that this Government cannot be trusted to fix even the most basic problems. Do the Conservative Government have any intention of keeping the promise they made in 2019 and fixing Hammersmith bridge?

[Huw Merriman]

The bridge is owned by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, which is not a Conservative borough, so I will correct the record there. There are two phases of work: stabilisation to ensure permanent access for pedestrians, cyclists and river traffic—despite not being the owner, the Government have put money into that—and strengthening. We will do everything we can to work with the owners of the bridge to make that happen.

Pedicabs (London) Bill [Lords]

Sarah Olney Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 28th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I wholeheartedly welcome this legislation and the steps taken by the Government to introduce a licensing regime for the only form of transport in London that is still unregulated. I hope to see the development of the pedicabs industry across London, providing employment and entrepreneurial opportunities as well as a safe, affordable and carbon-free form of transport, especially for those who are unable to utilise other forms of active travel.

In order to ensure that regulation can promote the use of pedicabs, rather than merely suppress the negative aspects of the unregulated trade, it is important to ensure that sufficient care and attention is paid to how such a trade might operate. The Liberal Democrats urge the Government and TfL to ensure that the relevant councils and user groups, such as the ones in my constituency of Richmond Park, are adequately consulted to ensure that the new regime is effective and that regulation is implemented as smoothly as possible.

My particular interest in pedicabs arises from their use as a means of transport in parts of the capital that are currently closed to motor traffic. I refer of course to Hammersmith bridge in my constituency in particular. We are shortly to mark the fifth anniversary of its closure to motor traffic, although I can assure the Minister that this milestone will not be celebrated with any particular joy among the communities of Barnes, East Sheen or Mortlake, or indeed wider afield, who have suffered ever since from the consequences of appalling traffic congestion.

There has yet to be a complete analysis of the full economic consequences to the capital of the continued closure of the bridge, but even if there were one, it could not encompass all the missed opportunities that my constituents have suffered: the passing trade missed by small businesses in Barnes; the employment opportunities that could not be taken up; and the educational, social and cultural events that had to be missed because people were unable to cross the river. During the 2019 election campaign, various Conservative politicians filmed themselves at the bridge, promising to get it fixed, yet here we are, staring down the barrel of another general election and no progress has been made. The Government have remained shamefully silent on their plans to fix the bridge, despite having been in possession of a business case from Hammersmith and Fulham Council for the past year.

However, adversity breeds innovation, and my enterprising constituents in Barnes have not sat by passively while being let down by the Government. In 2021 a temporary pedicab service was put in place across Hammersmith bridge by the Barnes Community Association. In the six months that it was operational, the scheme carried more than 9,000 people over the Thames and was a lifeline for those members of my constituency who cannot access the shops, hospitals and other services in Hammersmith while the bridge is closed. This temporary scheme demonstrated that there is demand for transport across Hammersmith bridge beyond cycling and walking, especially among older people and those with limited mobility. The ability to cross the bridge connects people with the economic and social opportunities denied to them by reliance on a lengthy and increasingly unreliable bus route.

Should this legislation pass, I urge Ministers to work with TfL to create a new pedicab service across the bridge that could serve as a model for other schemes in London. I have met Transport Ministers, officials from the Mayor’s office and local councillors, all of whom expressed support for the idea, and I hope the Minister will now publicly commit to working with TfL to renew efforts to get a pedicab service up and running across Hammersmith bridge, should this legislation be enacted. I believe that if a pedicab service could be put in place initially to serve those who wished to cross Hammersmith bridge, it could work as a proof of concept to enable the service to be extended to other parts of London where the promotion of active travel has been hindered by the need to cater for those with reduced mobility.

I would like to acknowledge the contribution of Liberal Democrat colleagues in the other place, where this legislation originated. I particularly welcome the fact that this Bill will provide the framework to address not only the noise pollution often caused by pedicabs in London but the safety issues for both passengers and pedestrians that are often linked to the driving of these vehicles. Further, I am pleased that we will be able to crack down on the extortionate fares often charged by pedicabs. There have been reports of some journeys of only 10 minutes resulting in fares of hundreds of pounds for the passenger. This legislation will therefore be useful not just in enabling the setting up of new pedicab schemes but in regulating those already in existence.

I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the outstanding work of Liberal Democrat London Assembly Member Caroline Pidgeon, who has campaigned for years on the issue of pedicabs in our capital as well as being an effective voice for Londoners on so many issues relating to crime and transport. She has given great service to the people of London in her 16 years as an Assembly Member and she will be much missed when she stands down in May.

This legislation is a welcome step towards setting up a framework to regulate pedicab usage in London, and the Liberal Democrats will be supporting the Bill today. My constituents in Richmond Park will particularly welcome the opportunity to make use of a clean, safe, good-value transport option to access the north side of the Thames, and I hope that the Government will continue to approach this legislation in an enabling, rather than suppressing, spirit. My constituents are still demanding answers on the long-term future of the bridge, and I will continue to press for them, but a short-term solution to the problem of access will none the less be welcome.