Airport Expansion

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if she will make a statement on Government policy on airport expansion.

I know that the hon. Member feels passionately about the issue of airport expansion, but I would like to make it clear that the press stories that have generated this urgent question are speculative and I cannot comment on their contents—[Interruption.] But we do have a world-class aviation sector in the UK. The Government are committed to securing the long-term future of the aviation sector, and we recognise the benefits of the connectivity it creates between the UK and the rest of the world. It is a sector that I am incredibly proud of. In 2022 the air transport and aerospace sectors directly provided around 240,000 jobs in the UK, of which just under 1,000 were in aerospace. In 2023 the air transport and aerospace sectors directly contributed around £25 billion to gross domestic product, of which around £14 billion was from the air transport sector and around £11 billion was from aerospace.

We have been clear that any airport expansion proposals would need to demonstrate that they contribute to economic growth, are compatible with the UK’s legally binding climate change commitments, and meet strict environmental standards on airport quality and noise pollution. There is currently no live development consent order application for a third runway at Heathrow airport, and it is for a scheme promoter to decide how it takes forward any development consent order application for that runway. The Government would carefully consider any development consent order application for the third runway at Heathrow, in line with relevant planning processes. The Secretary of State is currently considering advice on Luton airport and Gatwick airport expansions. As these are live applications, I cannot comment on them further today.

I understand the concerns of many Members of the House about how airport expansion may be compatible with our climate change targets. I would like to assure them that the Government have committed to delivering greener transport through sustainable aviation fuel and airspace modernisation. This will help meet the UK’s net zero targets, and it supports the Government’s mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower. Airport expansion will need to be considered carefully alongside these commitments.

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, and I thank the Minister for his response. It is vital that Parliament is not sidelined when the Government form new policies, especially policies that could wreck our climate ambitions.

Does the Minister understand that expanding London’s airports and building a third runway at Heathrow would be vastly irresponsible in the midst of approaching climate breakdown, and would literally be flying in the face of the Climate Change Committee’s advice? How can Ministers even be considering that, when 2024 was the year that we went over 1.5° warming—the limit that we committed to not breaking in the Paris climate agreement? How can Ministers see catastrophic wildfires in California, deadly floods in Spain last year, and devastating floods this year in the UK, and still pursue a wrong policy?

Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero told the Environmental Audit Committee that

“any aviation expansion must be justified within carbon budgets”.

Can the Minister explain why we are hearing trailed announcements of multiple airport expansions, exactly in the month before new advice from the Climate Change Committee is delivered? The committee could not have been clearer in previous reports that without a framework to manage aviation demand, we should not expand airports. Has he seen research from the New Economics Foundation estimating that approving airport expansion plans for Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton airports alone will serve to cancel out the carbon savings of the Government’s clean power action plan?

The Government’s arguments that I have seen appear to rest on the idea that there are new technologies ready to go that will cut carbon emissions and allow large airport expansions. In reality, does the Minister accept that such innovations, many of which are still not ready for commercial use, cannot be relied upon? Will he act in line with the science and our climate commitments, do the responsible thing and rule out a reckless airport expansion policy?

There is always a trade-off to be had, if applications come forward, between noise, carbon and growing our economy. We recognise that Heathrow has operated at over 95% capacity for most of the past two decades, which has presented limited opportunities for growth in route networks and passenger numbers. We live in an interconnected world, where people want to visit their family members and do business across our planet. This Government have moved faster in the first six months than the previous Government did in 14 years, by introducing the sustainable aviation fuel mandate, so that 2% of all fuel sourced from 1 January this year must come from a renewable source. Where was the hon. Member when we introduced that in this House? It is one of the most forward-thinking, sustainable measures that we have brought to this place. In the next few months, as part of His Majesty’s legislative agenda, we will be introducing the revenue certainty mechanism to create a world-class SAF industry here in the UK. I hope to see the hon. Member supporting the Government from the opposition Benches as we clean up our transport sector, our aviation sector and our economy as a whole.

I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.

A third runway at Heathrow has significant implications for UK-wide growth, for our carbon commitments, and for the 600,000 people who will live in the new 54 dB corridor of significant noise pollution, as well as air pollution. Does the Minister agree that such an announcement should be made in the context of a national aviation strategy? If he does, when will we see it?

I thank the Chair of the Transport Committee for her question. The airports national planning framework under the last Government has not been updated for some time, and we will shortly bring forward proposals to do that as part of our package. While there is currently no development consent application for Heathrow, we have been clear that expansion proposals would need to demonstrate that they contribute to economic growth, are compatible with our climate change targets, and meet strict environmental standards for air quality and noise pollution—the four tests.

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

In recent days we have heard that the Chancellor is about to announce her support for airport expansion at Luton, Gatwick and Heathrow. His Majesty’s Opposition are supportive of airport expansion because we recognise the huge economic benefits that would bring. For Luton and Gatwick, as the Minister has said, planning processes are well under way, but the situation at Heathrow is rather different.

A completed third runway at Heathrow would undoubtedly bring economic benefits, which we would support, but delivering that will not be straightforward because there are major logistical barriers to its construction. Those include, but are not limited to: hundreds of thousands of additional people being brought on to Heathrow’s flightpath; the potential for significant disruption to the M25 and M4, which could harm the economy for years to come; the fact that a large incinerator is in the way and would have to be demolished; and the need to address local concerns about noise and air pollution. The uncertainties do not end there, because to date Heathrow has not applied for a development consent order, and neither has it confirmed that it intends to do so.

That all leaves the Minister with many questions to answer. What assessment has he made of the impact of building a third runway on the M25 and M4, which are two of the busiest motorways in Europe? How certain is he that any proposed plan will have the support of affected communities? What is the estimated cost, and who will pay not just for the runway construction, but for the massive additional work that will need to be done, including, among other things, rerouting motorways, demolishing the incinerator and rebuilding it elsewhere? Perhaps most importantly, what assurances can he provide that there will be an application for a development consent order?

I sincerely hope that the Minister can answer those questions, because if he cannot it will be clear that this is not a serious policy, but rather a panicked and rushed attempt by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to distract attention from the state of the economy, which is currently withering under this floundering Labour Government.

Well, the brass neck! The last Government crashed the economy, sending mortgages through the roof, and called an early election to avoid having to make difficult decisions. Transport policy should be enabling growth as a priority in this country, so that we can bring about the change that the British people voted for. For 14 years we had a Government who had become so sclerotic in aviation, and indeed maritime—that is also part of my brief—that no decisions were brought forward on decarbonising the maritime or aviation sectors, or making the difficult decisions that this country needs to make. As the hon. Member rightly says, there is currently no development consent order before us, and that is for Heathrow or a related party to bring forward.

For me and for you, Mr Speaker, there is more than an element of déjà-vu in this debate. The Minister has said that what we have heard is speculative, but the Chancellor’s statements seem to be more authoritative than that. Has the Department provided the Chancellor with an assessment of where the 8,000 to 10,000 people in my constituency who will have their homes demolished or rendered unliveable will live if Heathrow expansion goes ahead? Has the Minister mapped for the Chancellor the flightpaths of the additional quarter of a million planes flying over the homes of people in those marginal seats of Uxbridge, Watford, Harrow and elsewhere? Has he advised the Chancellor on some of the figures that are being bandied about regarding the economic benefits, which seem to derive from Airports Commission figures that are out of date and that his own Department rubbished very thoroughly in recent years?

My right hon. Friend is a doughty campaigner for his constituents, but there is no DCO at the moment and we do not know the impact—that will be a matter for Heathrow or a third party to bring forward. I would like to hear a more full-throated support for our airspace modernisation plan, which will improve resilience, capacity and flexibility when it comes to aircraft noise over affected communities. When it comes to growth, my constituency, as you well know, Mr Speaker, has seen £2 billion of the Manchester MIX scheme at Manchester airport, with the development of the Hut Group and the most advanced Amazon fulfilment centre on the planet. We know that aviation brings growth and jobs. We know that there is a trade-off to be had, and we will have those conversations if a development consent order is brought before us.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

The Minister gave an admirably Delphic yet still disappointing answer. While we must grow the economy, we must not do so at the expense of the environment. Expanding Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton airports will drive, or even fly, a coach and horses through our climate commitments, adding 92 million tonnes of carbon dioxide to our carbon footprint by 2050. Do not just take my word for it: the Mayor of London; his previous deputy Mayor for transport, now the Transport Secretary; the Environment Secretary; the Chief Secretary to the Treasury; and the Prime Minister have all previously been opposed, as is the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. Can I ask the Minister three questions? First, why has his boss, the former London deputy Mayor for transport, changed her mind? Secondly, how can the Government reconcile this massive growth in carbon emissions with our climate commitments? Thirdly, why, if the Government are looking to grow our economy, are they not re-engaging meaningfully with Europe by negotiating a customs union?

That last one floored me ever so slightly. “Delphic”, the hon. Member says—or ambiguous and obscure, which is slightly like Liberal Democrat policies on aviation. They are one foot in, one foot out, shake it all about. They say one thing to one community under a flightpath, and another thing about jobs to another community under a flightpath. Whatever I say will end up on the Focus leaflets, but they cannot have it both ways. They cannot support growth, jobs, airspace modernisation and sustainable aviation fuels and then say to their constituents, “Look what this terrible Government are doing.” We have a firm plan for aviation in this country, and we are going to carry it out.

Does the Minister agree that plans for the third runway have gone cold over the past decade, since the airport commission? As he says, there is not even an application for a development consent order. Does he agree that there is no chance of spades in the ground this Parliament? If there were, that is when the problems would really start.