Airport Expansion

Question

15:10:00

Asked by

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they intend to consult the Committee on Climate Change before taking decisions on airport expansion.

The Government published their report on the Climate Change Committee’s latest progress report in December last year. The response makes it clear that we recognise the role for airport expansion where it provides economic growth and is compatible with our net-zero target and strict environmental standards. As part of the Airports National Policy Statement review, referred to by the Chancellor in her recent Statement, we will engage with stakeholders on how aviation expansion can be made consistent with our net-zero framework.

This level of airport expansion is always going to be incompatible with our climate change commitments. It would undo all our work on climate change in under five years. When just 15% of the population is responsible for 70% of all flights, the Government must do more to curb demand. No economy in the world has grown from building runways alone. Meanwhile, in 2024, the green economy grew by 10%, adding £83 billion. Does the Minister agree that what is needed more than anything else are clear and consistent government policies on climate change and green growth, not this damaging policy confusion?

I certainly do not agree with the noble Earl’s assertion about the incompatibility of this. The Government have been clear that any airport expansion proposals need to demonstrate that they contribute to economic growth, can be delivered in line with the UK’s legally binding climate change commitments, and meet strict environmental requirements on air quality and noise pollution. The work of the department has shown that we can achieve aviation net zero by 2050 under a range of assumptions about future technology development without the Government needing to intervene directly to limit airport expansion.

My Lords, when it comes to airport expansion and more flights, one of the key measures that can be used to reduce emissions is the increased use of sustainable aviation fuels. I welcome the SAF mandate but, when it comes to job creation and energy security, it is important that the SAF we are using in the UK is manufactured in the UK. Will the Minister set out what plans the Government have to support SAF production in the UK? Will he tell me how many jobs he expects to have been created in that sector specifically under those plans by 2030?

The noble Lord is right that sustainable aviation fuel is important in reducing the carbon footprint of air traffic. This Government have taken forward the SAF mandate, which came into force in January, which progressively increases the percentage of sustainable jet fuel used from this year onwards. It is also important, as the noble Lord says, that the UK is a supplier, and the actions of the Government are to make sure that there are jobs in Britain and that Britain is a leading supplier of this. On 29 January, the Government announced £63 million of funding for the advanced fuels fund in the next financial year to support SAF producers based across the United Kingdom. I do not have a jobs figure to hand for SAF, but I will willingly write to the noble Lord and tell him what we know about it.

My Lords, on the subject of airport expansion, there are airports around the country that are under capacity currently, including Cardiff Airport. What consideration have the Government given to working with the Welsh Government on driving more business in the direction of airports such as Cardiff Airport?

The Government recognise the importance of regional airports. I do not have in front of me what the Government are doing about the expansion of Cardiff Airport, but I will willingly write to my noble friend and tell him exactly what we know about Cardiff’s expansion and the Government’s role in helping it.

My Lords, when we did the Airports Commission review, the UK’s 2050 target was only an 80% emissions reduction, yet the third runway at Heathrow still required reduced growth at regional airports to keep within our carbon budgets. Has this analysis been redone and are the conclusions the same? Should we not wait for the seventh carbon budget, which is being published tomorrow?

I stand by the earlier figures I mentioned on achieving aviation net zero by 2050. The noble Baroness is right that the seventh report will be published tomorrow. The proposals from Heathrow, or any other promoter’s proposals, for a third runway have not yet been received. They will have to be followed by an application for a development consent order, which will have to be properly processed. It is not incompatible with the forthcoming publication for the Chancellor to express her enthusiasm for a third runway and the economic growth that it will produce.

My Lords, by 2040 aviation will be responsible for 27% of the UK’s carbon emissions. Given that most people in Britain—and in fact the world—do not get on a flight in any given year, is it not time to see that aviation is a luxury and not a human right, and to bring in a frequent flyer levy?

While I respect the noble Baroness’s view, the fact remains that a decent analysis suggests a third runway will create economic growth of measurable proportions to the British economy. This Government are extraordinarily keen on economic growth, for the obvious reason that the legacy of the previous Government left the economy in a really bad place. We need to use every means of economic growth that we have got to grow the economy and make the country more prosperous.

My Lords, when Heathrow was previously promoting this runway some eight or nine years ago, the estimated cost was £18 billion. Because of the regulated asset-based model on which it is funded, this cost will fall on the airlines and then further, consequently, on the passengers of airlines. Should not the Government be consulting passengers about whether they want this runway, as much as anything else? What plans do the Government have to consult them, and indeed the airlines?

As soon as the noble Lord got up, I was reminded that he was one of the principal promoters of the Thames estuary airport. That was a good, innovative and brave proposal, but would have cost the country far more than the figures he is quoting for the expansion of Heathrow. We have to wait for the proposals from Heathrow, or any other promoter, for the third runway and see what they look like. We can then see what the application for a DCO actually consists of, how much it is said to cost and what else needs to be done in order to achieve it. That will clearly be work in progress, considering that a proposal is expected only early in the summer.

My Lords, the Government—the Minister referred to this a moment ago—based their pronouncements on Heathrow on a report by Frontier Economics, but I recognise the key graph. It looks like a forecast for high demand for air travel, which is then met by Heathrow runway 3, but it is actually a graph of how much more air travel could be induced by runway 3 if a company applied an aggressive marketing strategy. How does a strategy based on inducing more air travel fit with the Government’s statements on climate change?

The next process is that the Government are committed to reviewing the Airports National Policy Statement, which is a government action. Then, as I say, this summer we will receive proposals from Heathrow, or from any other promoter, about a third runway, followed by an application for a development consent order. The matters that the noble Baroness refers to will no doubt be set out in Heathrow’s proposals and those of any other promoter, and then set out in detail in the DCO. We have to wait until then to see what they say about the demand, how it should be paid for—which was the subject of the previous question—and the Government’s view about what it will do for the economy.

My Lords, where there are major changes to large airports, will the Government take into account the needs of smaller aircraft such as air taxis, which are very often subject to changes in wind speed and direction, for example?

I cannot say whether a third runway at Heathrow will materially affect the ability of the airport to accept air taxis. There is clearly a limit to what size of aircraft can be landed, not only at the moment but in the future, but we will bear the noble Lord’s suggestion in mind.

I know that the Minister is a great supporter of UK connectivity; indeed, I would recommend his report on the same to the House. Given that that is the case, could he confirm that, for some of us, flight is essential?

I thank the noble Baroness. She will know that I spent a large portion of lockdown looking at connectivity in the United Kingdom. I entirely agree with her that the economy of Northern Ireland is utterly dependent on good flights to and from London and other places in mainland Britain. One of the opportunities that a third runway would give is better connectivity to Heathrow, the UK’s only hub airport, especially for Northern Ireland and places in Scotland, to make that economy grow, as well as mainland Britain’s economy.