Airport Expansion

Mike Kane Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

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

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

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.

[Siân Berry]

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?

[Mike Kane]

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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Kane]

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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

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.

[Mike Kane]

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.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)]

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?

[Mike Kane]

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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Kane]

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.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

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.

[Mike Kane]

For too long and on too many issues, this nation just has not made the tough decisions. When it comes to airport expansion, our world-class aviation sector, admired across the world, and decarbonising our sector, we are making huge progress—more in the past six months than in 14 years under the Tories. We will continue on our mission of renewing the national airport strategy, and will look at development consent orders as they become live. That is a quasi-judicial matter, and I cannot comment on Luton and Gatwick, as Members know. We will wait to see whether Heathrow or a related party brings forward a development consent order.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

Manston airport in Kent in my constituency has been fallow and the subject of legal action for far too long, but that is happily now behind us. We hope and expect that within the next few weeks, there will be announcements on funding that will lead to the development of a state-of-the-art net zero airport in Kent. Manston does not appear to feature in the Government’s plans. Can the Minister assure me that his eye is on that ball, and that Manston will become part of the growth programme?

[Mike Kane]

I have spoken to the right hon. Member about Manston in opposition and in government. We wait to see what will be brought forward there, but it could be an exciting opportunity, particularly for cargo; we could have zero emission vessels shipping content into the port of London. We will wait and see whether the airport comes with a development consent order, and we will judge that on its merits.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

I am old enough to have been there the last time this question was voted on. In the spirit of Gordon Brown and his tests over the euro, we applied tests of our own on capacity, carbon commitments, minimising noise and environmental impacts, and ensuring benefits for the whole UK. Can the Minister tell me whether those sensible tests still apply? Can he add another one, about costs to the public purse and deliverability, for my constituents, who will be the most affected? They want a better, not a bigger, Heathrow.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

Many of my constituents in Ealing Southall work at Heathrow or in its supply chain, and they will welcome the good-quality, well-paid jobs that airport expansion will bring. However, I have other constituents who worry about the environmental impact of any expansion. In taking any decision on this matter, will the Minister ensure that he balances the need for growth and for good-quality local jobs against the need to minimise air pollution and noise pollution?

[Mike Kane]

What a terrific question. [Interruption.] Well, it is. It hits the mark, in that there is a trade-off between noise, carbon and growing our economy for our people. Airports create high-paid, trade-unionised jobs, not just because of the aircraft that come in and out, but because of the ground handling services. We know that aviation communities are much better off because of the jobs that are created, and we have to balance the trade-off in the years ahead as we make tough decisions to grow our economy.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

I remind the Minister that sustainable aviation fuel is not an answer to poor air quality, which is the main reason why attempted expansion at Heathrow has failed in the past. It is also the reason for the Chancellor’s trenchant opposition to the expansion of Leeds Bradford airport, which would affect her constituency. Having been around since the days of the terminal 5 planning inquiry, I find it clear that the business case for Heathrow expansion rests on significant costs being imposed on taxpayers. They would be expected to foot the bill for the impact on the M4 and the M25, and for the loss of a waste incinerator that provides energy for many local authorities. Can the Minister assure the House that any DCO for Heathrow that comes forward will be subject to no less rigour and no less consultation than those brought forward in the past?

[Mike Kane]

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

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

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

[Mike Kane]

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

[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.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

I voted against the framework for Heathrow airport in 2018 because I was not satisfied that the legislation before us would deal with air quality, noise, climate change and surface access issues. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we are to go ahead with a third runway at Heathrow, we must satisfy ourselves in this House that those issues have been addressed, and that they cannot be set aside by developers once they have permission to go ahead?

[Mike Kane]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. Those tests must be met, including through the development consent order. Just for the record, I voted for the framework in 2018, because I thought that it passed those tests.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

Many of my constituents in Wetherby and Easingwold use Leeds Bradford airport, and the same will be true of the constituents of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood). For years, I have wanted expansion of Heathrow so that morning flights from Yorkshire could come down to Heathrow airport, allowing transatlantic flights to be boarded in Yorkshire. May I urge the Minister, when considering the expansion of Heathrow, to always give firm attention to regional airports, especially Leeds Bradford airport in Yorkshire? It would allow the economy to grow significantly if people could check in at Leeds and get off in New York.

[Mike Kane]

I could not agree more with the right hon. Member, though it pains me to say it. We have five great northern runways stretching from John Lennon to Manchester, Leeds Bradford and Newcastle, and we should be focusing on regional connectivity in particular. On Leeds Bradford, my recollection is that because of the lack of decision making by the last Government, confidence was lost in its development. Let us see if we can get a framework for improving connectivity at Leeds Bradford, including for those in the constituency of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood).

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I came to London yesterday by rail, as usual, and I must say that both Lumo and London North Eastern Railway are doing a fantastic job of getting people out of planes and on to trains between Edinburgh and London. [Interruption.] I always like to talk about trains. I am concerned that any increase in air capacity will take people off trains and help them make less sustainable transport choices. Will the Minister commit to speaking with the Rail Minister to understand any impacts of airport expansion on that service?

[Mike Kane]

My hon. Friend is exactly right: we have to join up the modes of transport. We have had a broken transport system as a result of 14 years of complete under-investment. Whether we are talking about rail connectivity to Glasgow, what will happen if a Heathrow development consent order comes forward, or just getting Northern trains working across the north of England, linking up Leeds Bradford, Liverpool, Manchester and Newcastle will be a key start to improving jobs and growth at those airports.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

In order to meet the problem of increasing demand for flights, what are the Government doing to improve rail connections with western Europe, including direct trains to Germany as well as Holland?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Kane]

I think that that involves fixing the problems with Eurostar. We are seeing others coming into that market, and European Union colleagues are running overnight long-distance train services, which are reducing the need for aviation across the continent and reducing carbon. We should be ambitious as a country that we can tap into that network. The right hon. Gentleman is right on this matter.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

Newcastle International airport tells me that Heathrow expansion would mean increased access to global markets for north-east businesses, new destinations for north-east tourists and easier access to our brilliant north-east universities for students from around the world. More broadly, given that air travel’s 5% of emissions are dwarfed by road travel emissions, does the Minister agree that the important work that his Department is doing to promote electric vehicles and the work that the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is doing on the decarbonisation of the electricity network is fundamental to demonstrating to my constituents that addressing climate change is not about saying no to travel and transport, but about saying yes to an economy that works for people and the planet?

[Mike Kane]

We have made tough decisions about the phasing out of internal combustion engines up to 2030. When I visited Newcastle airport, I saw a wonderful operation—it is also producing solar energy to power its operation. We need better connectivity between Newcastle and London, and I have raised that with carriers. If we are to develop our offshore wind, carbon capture and green energy technology, it must be linked up with the cruise industry, Newcastle airport and the great north-east coast that provides so many jobs, services and industries for people across our nation.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I have been enjoying the Minister’s lively presentation, but then I do not live under a potential new flightpath. Are the Government consulting their Back Benchers about the possibility of aviation and airport expansion versus net zero? If so, will they be advising them to clean up what they have said on this subject on the internet before it is hoovered up by the Opposition in preparation for the next general election?

[Mike Kane]

There has been a lot of AI news in the press today. I say gently to the right hon. Gentleman that I grew up under a flightpath in my home town in Wythenshawe and Sale East. I grew up under the BAC-111s, the Tridents, the Concordes and the Guppys. [Interruption.] I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Withington (Jeff Smith) agrees with me. I remember how dirty, noisy and smelly those planes were. Technology has come forward leaps and bounds, and the noise envelope around most of our airports has reduced considerably. Through our investments, we hope to improve the technology further under this Government and the next.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)]

This weekend, The Sunday Times featured a great cartoon by Morten Morland showing the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Energy Secretary tearing up a Whitehall office looking for the growth lever. I am a supporter of the Welsh freeports programme and airport expansion where there is environmental mitigation. Will the Minister please say more about the Government’s sustainable aviation plans and the use of low-carbon tech to help economic growth?

[Mike Kane]

I thank my hon. Friend for his support for growth at our ports, which includes our maritime ports. There is £63 million for the advanced fuels fund and £1 billion for the Aerospace Technology Institute to look at net zero emissions. We have already introduced—it was almost the Government’s first act out of the gate; it came into force on 1 January—the SAF mandate, so this year 2% of all fuel will have to be from a sustainable source, and we will shortly legislate on the revenue certainty mechanism to kick-start the SAF industry in the UK. The Government could not have done more in the six months we have had in office.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

I note that the Minister did not mention noise pollution in his statement. As he grew up under a flightpath, I hope that he enjoyed the noise. Eight routes currently pass over my constituency, sometimes after midnight. My constituents struggle with the noise—one said that it was like having an uninvited dinner guest every night. It not only disturbs sleep but has profound health implications. With that in mind, is the Minister going to ignore the health impacts of a third runway?

[Mike Kane]

I cannot comment on the third runway because there is no development consent order before us, but the hon. Lady makes an extraordinarily valid point about noise. That is why the Liberal Democrats should get behind us and support airspace modernisation. We have an analogue system in a digital age, which was designed more for the days when Yuri Gagarin went into space than for today. We can give people under flightpaths more choice in future by differentiation, if we have a better system of airspace modernisation.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

My local airport, Stansted, is a huge employer for residents in my constituency, and it is has led the way in developing sustainable aviation fuel. Does the Minister agree that sustainable aviation fuel is vital to achieving our decarbonisation targets?

[Mike Kane]

Sustainable aviation fuel is vital to meeting our climate targets. I commend Manchester Airports Group, which includes Stansted and East Midlands, and Manchester in my own constituency, on its work to decarbonise. It is ahead of the game. It flies one in six people in and out of the UK. When it gets it right, that represents a huge emissions reduction.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that one of the many benefits of a third runway at Heathrow is that it would require the removal of one of the largest waste incinerators in the country? When this matter comes before him, will he ensure that there is no reprovisioning of this monster in a densely populated area, but that we see its deletion altogether so that we deal with waste in a truly sustainable way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Kane]

There is no DCO currently. If one comes forward, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will make his voice heard.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for repeating what we heard from the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero at the Environmental Audit Committee yesterday: that no plans will be approved unless they are in line with the Government’s environmental commitments.

My hon. Friend cannot comment on Gatwick and Luton because they have a live DCO, and he cannot comment on Heathrow because it does not have a live DCO, which is handy. Let me ask him about something that he can comment on. What changes will we make to ensure that any airport expansion plans are in line with our environmental commitments? Can he explain more about what the offsets will be to ensure that the Government are able to meet the commitments that he has confirmed they will make?

[Mike Kane]

I thank my hon. Friend for his chairmanship of the Environmental Audit Committee, of which I was a proud member for many years, looking at the circular economy, which this Government are taking forward. The Government have committed to delivering greener transport, including through SAF, airspace modernisation and the other measures that I laid out. I am proud of that range of measures. The Front-Bench across this Department are decarbonising the transport sector further and faster in the first six months of this Government than in 14 years of the last.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

The Minister has made a great deal of the position of my party on Heathrow airport. As he is such a fan of our Focus leaflets, I am sure he will know from my own that I have consistently raised airport noise, opposition to the expansion of Heathrow, sustainable aviation fuel and airspace management in this place. How will he make the airspace management plan fit with any forthcoming emissions and capacity management framework? We have yet to hear from the Government about that, but the Liberal Democrats consider it vital to the future sustainability of the air transport industry in this country.

[Mike Kane]

I am generally very grateful for the Liberal Democrats’ support for airspace modernisation. It is complicated and difficult. We are throwing our hat over the wall in trying to reach it. It will be easier in certain parts of our country than others, but we have already taken action. We set up the airspace modernisation design service. We are bringing the best and the brightest together. If we can make the planes fly in a straight line, we will use less carbon. It is the lowest of low-hanging fruit for carbon reduction in the aviation sector, and we are moving at pace on it.

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

I welcome this Government’s commitment to the aviation sector. The closure of Doncaster airport on 30 December 2022, with the loss of 800 jobs and the smoothest access to flights in the country, was devastating. The reopening of the airport has been a long-fought campaign that has the backing of my constituents in Bassetlaw. Today, they will be saying: “Bring the flights and the infrastructure to our area.” Will the Minister put his shoulder to our campaign?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Kane]

Without a doubt. People are proud of their airports. Mine was 80 years old a few years ago, and I saw people turn up in droves to show their pride in aviation in this country. I felt sorry for the people of Doncaster, Sheffield and the environs when they lost their airport. I commend the mayor, the council and the local MPs who have lobbied me relentlessly on this matter. The council now has a deal with the operator, and the first flight took off very recently. I wish them every luck with it, and they will have my full backing to do what needs to be done.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) and others, I want to focus on the role of our regional airports. Surely the Minister would agree that the expansion of some of them could help the Government’s growth agenda and provide a boost to local economies. With improved rail connections, many of our regional airports could serve travellers to and from London. The work involved could be completed long before a DCO for Heathrow could be concluded.

[Mike Kane]

Airports near the hon. Member’s constituency will have a key part to play for workers across our nation with respect to the decarbonisation agenda and sustainable fuels, because Immingham sits within his constituency. That will be key to the UK’s plans to decarbonise our economy, along with good rail connectivity. Airports are a market within the private sector—planes want to go to particular places—but if we can expand and grow our economy across all our regions, as we hope to, I hope that this will be a golden age for all our airports.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) was correct to say that this feels like déjà vu. Here we are again, debating huge transport infrastructure expansion in the south-east of England while constituents right across this country, especially in the north-east, think, “What about us?” Does the Minister agree that if expanding transport infrastructure in this country is the key to growth, that growth must happen everywhere?

[Mike Kane]

I agree. As I have said, airports that make the right decisions in the next few years on improving the airspace and improving their connectivity through surface access all have the potential to grow like my airport has grown exponentially. I urge Members to get behind their airports and support their growth and decarbonisation agendas.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

Globally, half of aviation emissions are a result of flights taken by the wealthiest 1%. In the UK, 70% of flights are taken by the richest 15%. Is expanding aviation capacity not a matter of fairness? It will facilitate the very richest, who are already frequent flyers, to be able to fly more, while the noise, carbon emissions and air pollution impacts will be inflicted on the most ordinary people in society, including the poorest at home and around the world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Kane]

I think it was Woody Allen who said that 80% of success in life is turning up, and I must gently ask once again where the hon. Gentleman was when we were introducing the sustainable aviation mandate in this House. I hope he will be here when we introduce the revenue support mechanism in the months ahead and decarbonise our aviation sector.

I think people have the right to go on holiday at least once a year, to do business across the planet and to visit friends and family. I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman’s policies are. If he wants to send them to me, I will put them on one of my Labour roses.

[Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Following on from the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White), does the Minister agree that it is important to also support regional airports in the north, including Doncaster airport? The reopening of the airport is supported by all my neighbouring parliamentary colleagues. Together with my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher), I am working with Doncaster council and the South Yorkshire combined authority to get this critical piece of transport infrastructure back. The growth agenda will be a success only if places like Doncaster feel it too. It is important that the people of Doncaster and South Yorkshire can take off once again.

[Mike Kane]

I have to say, my hon. Friend is so tenacious on this matter that I sometimes go pale when I meet her in the Division Lobby, because every day she asks after it. She is such a campaigner on it. I saw her go around party conference lobbying the industry and airlines to do what her constituents sent her to Parliament to do and to try to come up with a solution for her local airport. I can only commend her tenacity to the House.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

Will the Minister confirm what compensating measures the Government will take, if airport expansion is to go ahead, to ensure adherence to carbon budgets? They must have already been agreed on by now.

[Mike Kane]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his considered approach in all these matters. I was pleased to receive him at the Department the other day to talk about a particular constituency issue that related to Gatwick. We do not have a development consent order, but noise and pollution are the tests to meet our climate commitments, and they will remain the tests. It will be up to the Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), and Members across this House to hold the Government’s feet to the fire on this matter.

[Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

The reopening of Blackpool airport for commercial flights is a top priority for my constituents, as I have raised previously with the Minister. Does he agree that we need to work with our regional airports to deliver the growth and the jobs we need in places such as Blackpool that were forgotten about by the previous Government over 14 years?

[Mike Kane]

What a breath of fresh air my hon. Friend was in his by-election, and he is now on these Benches, campaigning for his airport in Blackpool. I am really looking forward to visiting the airport and to my night out there—I hope that will come with fish and chips on the prom, as well.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

The expansion of Heathrow feels a bit like the Schrödinger’s cat of expansion at the moment—it is both happening and not happening, depending on what one’s perspective is today. I realise that the Minister will not be tempted to comment on Gatwick either, as it is a live DCO process. Given that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), and the Minister have both asserted that growth is an inevitable consequence of airport expansion, can I ask the Minister what evidence he has to support that assertion?

[Mike Kane]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question, but I do not think I will take any lectures from Liberal Democrat Members about sitting on the fence. Theirs is the politics of licking their finger, putting it in the air to see which way the wind is blowing, and then putting it in a leaflet. There is no development consent order for Heathrow yet. I am sure the hon. Lady will have her opportunity to raise her concerns at a later date in this place.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

I could not agree more with the Minister when he points out that any airport expansion has to be part of the overall picture of upgrading Britain’s broken transport networks. Bracknell sits on the Reading to Waterloo train line, which passes through Feltham, just south of Heathrow. Journey times on the line have not improved since the ’70s, and there is no direct connection to Heathrow. Will the Minister assure me that any plans to upgrade airports will be part of the overall picture of an integrated plan?

[Mike Kane]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. I am not usually quite so divisive at the Dispatch Box, but we inherited such a broken system it is almost untrue, such are the things we are finding out about the sclerotic nature of the previous Government. The Roads Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), is investing £1.6 million in fixing potholes, while the Minister responsible for buses, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), has invested £1 billion in buses. We are moving fast. We are fixing things and we are delivering.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

As a fellow Greater Manchester MP, the Minister will undoubtedly know that Manchester airport welcomed 30 million passengers through its doors last year, and that 84% of those passengers came to and from the airport by car. He will rightly acknowledge the valid concerns across the House today about the impact of airport expansion on carbon emissions. The carbon footprint of Manchester airport comes only partly from air travel, as a lot of it comes from road travel. What update can the Minister give my constituents on surface access improvements at Manchester airport, so that they can get to and from the airport, whether as passengers or to work, by bus or by train?

[Mike Kane]

Well, the Conservatives built a road, but it just floods all the time—maybe we can start by dealing with that. The hon. Lady is right that Manchester airport is in my constituency. Mine is actually the most visited constituency in the north of England; in fact, 30 million people visited it last year alone, although they may not have stayed as long as I would have liked. The airport has been on an incredible journey, especially with its decarbonisation. I hope to meet the airport operators shortly to continue that journey with them.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

It is right that in this debate we all champion our local and regional airports, including Birmingham International. However, the reality is that no other airport is a serious rival to the long-haul hub capacity that Heathrow provides, and its exhaustion of that capacity is a block on growth in every region of the UK. Does the Minister agree that redirection of that pent-up demand to Schiphol and Dubai is no good for the national accounts and no good for the environment?

[Mike Kane]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is a very good campaigner for his local airport and for the public service obligation flights out of that airport. Not making these tough decisions does not mean there is no carbon—it simply means that customers vote with their feet and go to Schiphol, Frankfurt or Charles de Gaulle to hub out to their destinations. We have to look at things in the round when we are talking about decarbonising the UK aviation sector.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Given the hugely contradictory evidence on whether expanding airport capacity will boost GDP growth, will the Minister explain how the Government can justify prioritising airport expansion over much-needed substantial investment in green travel and public transport, which would benefit the economy in the long term and benefit a far wider group of people in this country than the very small group of wealthy frequent flyers who will benefit from airport expansion?

[Mike Kane]

I am hearing that Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches are against wealthy people and against our constituents flying, in some cases. There is no bigger champion of active travel in this House than me—except for my ministerial colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell—and I hope to do a lot more on that when it comes to ports and airports. All people, regardless of their income, should have a choice about how they get around. We had a broken system over the past 14 years, which meant people had no choice. Now, they are getting better buses, their potholes are fixed, and we are investing more in active travel than ever before.

[Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) made an excellent point about hub airports. At the moment, there are 19 flights between my local airport in Newcastle and Heathrow, but 30 a week between Newcastle and Amsterdam. I dare say that some people from the north-east may wish to sample the unique delights of Amsterdam, some will certainly be using Amsterdam as a hub airport, instead of Heathrow. That is bad for our economy, bad for passengers, and, because it is further away than Heathrow, bad for the environment, too. Is it not right that we build hub capacity in this country because it is the best thing to do environmentally?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Kane]

I also understand that you can have a good old party on the ferry from the port of Tyne to Amsterdam—I do not know whether my hon. Friend has taken it. He is exactly right. If we do not invest in a hub airport in the UK, people will go point to point outside the UK to transfer to the places they want to go to. That is worse for carbon emissions than us taking responsibility for the decisions we need to make to decarbonise our aviation sector.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I welcome the support the Minister has given to the Chancellor today. He has made it quite clear, if the speculation turns into reality, where he will stand on the issue. That is important, given the need for hub airports to export our goods, build business links and give people the personal freedom to travel across the world. But is he concerned, given the Energy Secretary’s obsession with net zero, the large number of Members who seem to be more concerned about long-term climate predictions, uncertain as they may be, than the immediate needs of growth and jobs in this economy, and the potential for lengthy court battles because of our statutory commitments to carbon dioxide reduction, that no investor will look at these projects but will instead continue to look at hub airports in the rest of Europe?

[Mike Kane]

I thank the right hon. Member, who I know is a campaigner on this. I keep a close eye on all matters of connectivity to Northern Ireland. Investor confidence in aviation is huge: investors are queuing up and looking for opportunities. We must ensure those opportunities come with jobs and growth, but also that they are clean and decarbonise our sector. I say stick with the plan. We will decarbonise the grid and our UK economy, but we can grow it at the same time—the two things are not contradictory.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that it would be irresponsible to kick the can down the runway on airport expansion and other major infrastructure when this country is desperate for growth? We need a Government willing to take the tough decisions to overcome the blockers and get things built in the national interest and in the interests of citizens all around our country.

[Mike Kane]

I cannot agree more. The Government’s defined mission will be growth. The aviation sector is one where we can grow the economy, because it provides the connectivity and the high-skilled, trade unionised jobs that support families and careers right across our country.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Before the Minister asks me where I was during the sustainable aviation fuels debate, I was here. Having 22% SAF by 2040 still means 78% fossil fuels in aircraft fuel—an awful lot. My constituents are impacted by Bristol airport expansion. I meet regularly with my local group Stop Bristol Airport Expansion group. They want to know what impact assessment has been made of the cumulative effect of the additional carbon emissions that will be created by all the proposed airport expansion plans taken together.

[Mike Kane]

I thank the hon. Member. She is actually right, and well done to her for being there during the SAF debate and supporting the Government.

At the moment, the technology does not exist to fully decarbonise aviation. We are looking at hydrogen, we have the advanced fuels fund and we are investing £1 billion in the ATI, but, as the Prime Minister announced recently when he went to Merseyside, we are investing billions in carbon capture and other technology to offset those emissions. That is what we will have to do in the near future, but I envisage a day when we will have aircraft in our skies, particularly internally in the UK, with zero emissions coming out of their tailpipes.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government’s commitment to growth. I also welcome their commitment to taking the difficult decisions required to generate it. We know that any conversations about a third runway will focus on the south, but I would like to ask about the north. May I ask the Minister, in my capacity as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Yorkshire and northern Lincolnshire, if the project is approved, what will be done to ensure that all regions benefit from the proceeds of the growth generated?

[Mike Kane]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question and, even from this Lancastrian, for his chairmanship of the APPG for Yorkshire. I will say a couple of things. We have five great northern runways, and we need to begin to improve their capacity and connectivity. That is key to regional economic growth. Hopefully, whoever comes forward with the DCO for Heathrow will, as they have in the past, look at spreading the wealth and at logistic hubs right not just around our country, but Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

My local communities, including Flamstead, Markyate and Wheathampsted, are already plagued by Luton airport and very worried about expansion. If the Minister cannot answer questions about evidence for a positive impact on growth and the economy, can he at least guarantee that the Government will listen to their own climate experts and have a framework in place before any airport expansion?

[Mike Kane]

Yes, is the answer. We will come forward, very shortly, with a policy framework. We have not had one for many years. It is more than time to update it—the hon. Lady is right.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I very much welcome the Minister’s answers—they have been both confident and progressive, which is encouraging for me as the MP for Strangford. My constituents have expressed some concern about the impact on the environment of the potential expansion, but it has been highlighted to me that building for planes to land, so they do not have to circle, is highly beneficial for the environment. Will the Minister confirm that our environmental obligations have been fully considered in any decisions that are made for the potential expansion of Heathrow? Will there be—I know the Minister will say yes, but I want him to say it on the record—more domestic connections with Belfast International and Belfast City airports?

[Mike Kane]

The hon. Member is such a doughty campaigner that I think he had an urgent question in the House a few weeks ago when his plane was cancelled! “Well done,” is all I can say. That day we had a really good question and answer session on connectivity in Northern Ireland. We have two great airports in Belfast, and Derry/Londonderry’s airport serves the north-west. His first question is about planes flying in a straight line—an obscure piece of policy, which is in our manifesto, called airspace modernisation. We can cut up to 10%, 20% and, I am told in the case of some easyJet flights, even 30% of carbon emissions by just getting planes to go in a reasonably straight line and not circle around. It introduces resilience at airports and makes the passenger experience much better. I hope those on the Opposition Benches will support the policy when it comes to this place.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his very full answers to questions, which mean I am now on the seventh or eighth version of my question. [Laughter.] There are two points I would like to explore. First, on emissions, SAF will only ever be a transitionary fuel. What effort are the Government making to engage with industry to develop truly zero-carbon power plants, and harness our incredible industry and our companies that can take advantage of the opportunity to lead the real zero-carbon hydrogen electric power plants? Secondly, on noise, the Minister mentions airspace modernisation, which will mean some residents facing greater noise frequency and impacts. Does he agree that the answer to the first question, on next generation power plants, is actually the answer to the second question on noise? Please, will he give us a proper answer on what the Government are doing to take advantage?

[Mike Kane]

That is the problem when a new Member is called last, but he is agile—mentally on his feet—to get that in. We are investing in hydrogen zero-emission technology, with £1 billion for the ATI. I hope the hon. Gentleman is sat on the Opposition Benches in the months ahead when we implement the revenue certainty mechanisms, so we can kickstart a new age of SAF production in the UK that will bring jobs and growth right across our great country.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the Minister for his responses.

Draft Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements etc.) Regulations 2025

Mike Kane Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements etc.) Regulations 2025.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey—as constituency neighbours, we share runway 2 between us. In fact, I was on speed dial with your predecessor and another neighbour, the former Chair of the 1922 Committee—I was probably the most powerful Back-Bench Labour MP in the place at the time. I thought that would get more of a rise—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Kane]

I thank hon. Members for being here for the consideration of the draft regulations. Let me respond to the hon. Member for Orpington, in particular, by saying that the Department will write to industry and stakeholders now to make them aware of the provisions that are coming into force. The airport slot co-ordinator will take into account the new entrants as part of the co-ordination activities for winter 2025. There is no indication of a pandemic, but the hon. Member is right that we do not know what is around the corner. There are press reports today of bird flu in the UK, and we have seen reports of monkeypox. As he rightly said, the regulations will help with resilience. We will monitor the legislation and ensure that it is implemented is through the course of normal activity within the Department.

In response to the hon. Member for South Antrim, let me say that when the measures providing slot alleviation because of covid-19 were introduced, they did not apply to Northern Ireland. There were no slot co-ordinated airports there, and because the measures were temporary and lasted for six months—or one scheduling session—at a time, after which they needed to be reviewed, the Northern Ireland authorities were happy with that approach. However, the position is now different. The new measures are permanent, and it made sense to apply them throughout the whole of the UK.

[Mike Kane]

That is great, and I am sure that if the Minister in Northern Ireland is not happy then the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) will ask an urgent question in the House before we know it.

I thank Members again for their consideration and for their questions. To conclude, the regulations will make two permanent changes to regulation 95/93, as the hon. Member for Orpington said, reducing barriers to entry at UK airports and making the slot allocation system more resilient. They are putting the UK on the front foot, and ensuring we build on the lessons learnt from covid-19.

Question put and agreed to.

Coastguard Helicopter Services

Mike Kane Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure and an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss, as we have become great friends over our time in Parliament. I welcome the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden), to the House and the Front Bench—even if it is only in a temporary capacity. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on bringing this debate to the House again—I think I was on the Opposition Benches on the last occasion.

As the right hon. Member eloquently said, His Majesty’s Coastguard and our dedicated search and rescue services have continued to provide a superb response to save lives at sea and around our coast. It is great to hear that reflected by all Members in the Chamber today. Recently, we have seen all our emergency services working together to respond to the recent storms that have affected millions of people. Whether rescuing people from flooding or helping them find shelter from the snow and ice, our search and rescue teams have continued to respond both day and night in often the most atrocious weather. I formally thank all the members of our search and rescue teams for their continuing commitment and dedication to helping any person in need of rescue or assistance.

I am delighted to announce that, following the review commissioned by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency into the proposed changes to the readiness states of the search and rescue helicopters based in Sumburgh and Stornoway, agreement for their readiness states to be maintained at 15 minutes by day and 45 minutes by night has been reached. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) will be delighted.

[Mr Carmichael]

I can only thank the Minister; that is exceptionally welcome news, and is exactly what we would have expected of him. I expected no less.

[Mike Kane]

The chief executive of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency will write to the relevant right hon. and hon. Members this month to advise them of the maintenance of the readiness states of those bases. I appreciate that it has taken some time for the final approvals to be granted; that is due to the complexities of the service provision.

In a previous debate, in November 2023, the intent and scope of the review was advised to the House. That included new data modelling to look at changes in operational requirements since the original contract was let. It also acknowledged that service demand may have been impacted by the recent pandemic, and reflected the demand on the coastguard services associated with the increased accessibility of the coastline and remote areas, which include the beautiful Shetland Islands and Outer Hebrides. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) is not in his place, but he raised the case of his constituent, Nigel Gordon. As the Minister, I extend my sympathies to Nigel’s family.

Notification of the intent to maintain the current readiness states was sent to the aircraft operators, Bristow Helicopters Ltd, in December 2024 and will be enacted under the conditions agreed in the second-generation search and rescue aviation contract. The MCA and Bristow Helicopters continue to work closely together to implement the new service, which will make the most of technological advances, ensure that we retain a world-class search and rescue service, and align the readiness states of all UK search and rescue helicopter bases. The revised readiness states will be implemented as part of the transition timeline, which is expected to take place in October 2026 in Sumburgh and in January 2027 in Stornoway.

I am sure that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will appreciate the ongoing work of the MCA and my Department to implement these changes, which include significant additional investment achieved by my Department to support our vital maritime and coastal services during these challenging financial times. The changes demonstrate the continuing commitment of His Majesty’s Coastguard and my Department to continue to provide this vital lifesaving service, which builds on more than 40 years of experience in providing a search and rescue helicopter service in the Scottish islands.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has reminded the House of the work of this vital service to support our seafarers and the wider UK economy. We have seen some notable rescues over the years, which included the tragic loss of one of the aircrew during the successful rescue of the crew of the Green Lily in 1997. The ultimate sacrifice of Billy Deacon, the winchman of the Sumburgh-based coastguard search and rescue helicopter, will always be remembered across the service. The Billy Deacon search and rescue memorial trophy was established to commemorate his sacrifice. The award, which was presented this year on the 27th anniversary of his loss, recognises the unique bravery of our winch paramedics and winch operators.

I am immensely proud of the work of all our search and rescue teams and, as has been mentioned, both our full-time officers and volunteers continue to support the service. I ask the House to pay tribute to all the crews of search and rescue teams and their vital work, and to remember those who have been lost while trying to save others.

The second-generation search and rescue aviation contract is a £1.6 billion investment by my Department to ensure the continued provision of a world-leading fleet of advanced search and rescue aircraft. No bases have been closed, and all current helicopter bases will continue to provide a 24-hour search and rescue service. Additionally, two seasonal bases will be constructed—one in Scotland and one in northern England, which will operate for 12 hours a day from April to September.

The additional seasonal bases enhance the UK-wide service, providing additional cover in the busier summer months. Their introduction will not impact the tasking of current bases: the search and rescue aircraft will continue to be tasked with aeronautical rescue by the joint rescue co-ordination centre, as they are today, to meet the requirements to prioritise saving life. We have invested in enhanced, innovative technologies to improve our search and rescue response to help to reduce the time taken to search for missing persons. The technologies will be rolled out during the transition of the current bases to meet new service provisions under the contract.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland raised the issue of helicopter support for the movement of patients. Search and rescue helicopters may be asked to support our ambulance services to assist in moving critically ill patients to higher levels of care. These requests will be considered where capacity exists and no other means of transport are available and only if the request meets the legal requirement to be appropriate, compliant and achievable within the air operations certification. In accepting these requests, there must be no impact on the provision of primary search and rescue operations. However, the support is not guaranteed and should not be relied on by the health service; the movement of patients remains the responsibility of ambulance services.

[Dave Doogan]

The Minister rightly acknowledges the point made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) about the use of search and rescue helicopters for ambulance services, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do in extremis; it is not their job but they can do it. That happens in Scotland despite NHS Scotland funding two air ambulances and two fixed-wing aircraft, which is not the case in England. Is the Minister aware of any Government plans to introduce NHS-owned and operated airborne ambulance services to protect coastguard services in England?

[Mike Kane]

Speaking of what Scotland provides for its NHS, I recently visited the CAELUS project in Aberdeen. Drone technology has been enhanced to carry blood supplies very quickly in order to help patients right across that great nation. I will come back to the hon. Gentleman with a more detailed answer to his question in a moment.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland mentioned that he was managed on a recent visit to a helicopter base. In my time of knowing him, I have always personally found him unmanageable, as I am sure the crew did on his visit. I am glad to say that the dispute with Bristow was successfully settled in the summer. I have kept in close contact with the British Airline Pilots’ Association on the matter, both in opposition and in government. It is not for a Minister to intervene in disputes of that nature, but I am glad that the parties reached a settlement.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland also mentioned logistics. Logistics is a growing worry within my brief, particularly across aviation and somewhat in maritime. Since the pandemic, we just do not have enough parts being produced. Airlines in Scotland are having to buy planes only to mothball them to get parts for their existing stock. I keep a watching brief on logistics and I talk to the MCA director about it. My advice is that the AW189 is a proven, tested and capable aircraft for search and rescue across the world, and there are more of them in service than the old S-92s, so there are fewer supply chain issues with the newer helicopters.

I thank the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) for his contribution. There are some statistics that I would have liked to read out, but I do not have the time in my speech. That was powerful personal testimony about his wife. I know it was some time ago, but I wish her all the best. He asked about NHS helicopter landing pads. We had something called the Derriford incident recently. The Air Accidents Investigation Branch sent some advice, and we are currently reviewing all those pads across the nation to ensure that they are safe for the future of all services.

I will turn back to the point made by the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) on air ambulance provision by NHS Scotland and the Scottish Government. The sector has made an incredible contribution. I am led to understand that there are no current plans for officials to work with the Department of Health and Social Care or the NHS.

Finally, I will turn to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I am glad that he called me a close friend. I now know that he relaxes—I never knew that was the case. He watches westerns on a Sunday; I now know when to disturb him with a phone call. I see him as some latter-day John Wayne, climbing into his saddle and going out into the tundra of cacti deserts. The way he approaches his politics in this House always shows “True Grit”. [Hon. Members: “Ohh!”] Come on, it was a belter! I pay tribute to his service in Northern Ireland, and thank him for his personal testimony about the young men that were lost at sea. My heartfelt condolences go to their families. He will know, as I do, that burying our dead is a corporal act of mercy. Finding the dead and bringing their bodies back to their families is, in my opinion, an essential element of search and rescue. The hon. Member is right to raise that and it shows his character that he, as the constituency MP, personally went to visit those families.

In closing, I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland for securing this debate. I again pay tribute to all our search and rescue services, across the UK, for their selfless dedication to saving lives 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Kane Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)]

2. If she will review the UK’s participation in the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service programme.

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

The Department for Transport is working with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to consider options for the UK’s access to a navigation system of this type, which lapsed following Brexit. This work is ongoing, and no decision has been made at this time.

[Graham Leadbitter]

I also welcome the Secretary of State to her new role, and I look forward to working across party boundaries where possible. EGNOS is a satellite enhancement system for GPS. Prior to Brexit, Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd, which is headquartered in my constituency, had been working with National Air Traffic Services on developing the use of the system, and invested a lot of time and effort. It would increase mapping accuracy and, vitally, enable planes flying lifeline air services to land in a broader range of circumstances, improving service and reliability. As the Minister said, that work has stalled since Brexit, but the Government can re-engage with the programme should they choose, as it is open to non-EU members. Will the Minister commit to doing that?

[Mike Kane]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for putting this on my radar. [Interruption.] Too early? [Laughter.]

[Mr Speaker]

Don’t give up the day job.

[Mike Kane]

It is an important issue. We are considering the costs and benefits of all options, and it is very good particularly for regional airports. We are working with the EU to identify areas where we can strengthen co-operation for mutual benefit, but it is still too early to discuss that specific area in detail. I hope to come back to the House at a later time with a more considered view.

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

3. What steps she is taking to help improve road safety for vulnerable road users.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)]

8. What steps she is taking to support the use and production of sustainable aviation fuels.

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

The SAF mandate, which is one of the first pioneering policies of its kind, came into force on 1 January 2025 to build domestic demand for SAF. We are also growing UK supply through the advanced fuels fund, and we are committed to introducing a revenue certainty mechanism in the King’s Speech to encourage investment in UK SAF production.

[Gregor Poynton]

I thank the Minister for his response. This UK Government are indeed working at pace to position the UK as a global leader in the rapidly growing SAF industry, which is vital for decarbonising aviation and our aviation industries, and for growing our economy. Will he commit in the forthcoming sustainable aviation fuel Bill to bringing forward the timeline for the revenue certainty mechanism to the end of this year or perhaps early 2026? Accelerating that measure, which has wide support, will give investors the confidence they need to back the 10 potential SAF facilities across the UK, including in Grangemouth, which is near my constituency.

[Mike Kane]

I thank my hon. Friend, who has been a huge campaigner for Grangemouth. We have committed to bringing forward the revenue certainty mechanism. We have already legislated for a 2% fuel mix in the SAF mandate, which came into force on 1 January this year, and we look forward to the Bill coming before the House when parliamentary time allows.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answer. I know that he has a deep interest in Northern Ireland, so may I ask a similar question? Northern Ireland wants to provide the necessary aviation fuels and has the ability to do so. What progress has he made in his discussions with the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure that we can be part of the future of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which is always better together?

[Mike Kane]

The hon. Member is a doughty champion of air travel and SAF in Northern Ireland. Through the advanced fuels fund, we have 13 projects and we are currently investing well over £100 million across the UK to see what comes forward in the market, and I hope that Northern Ireland will be integral to that process.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

May I, too, wish the Minister a very happy birthday?

Estimates suggest that the SAF mandate provisions and the revenue certainty mechanism will still leave a shortfall, with a family of four facing over £300 extra to fly on holiday by 2040. That is a clear concern for consumers, as well as the airline industry. Net zero should not come at an additional cost to consumers or undermine freedoms—in this case, the freedom to fly. The test must surely be how to defossilise, decarbonise and allow people to do the same at the same cost. What steps is the Minister taking in conjunction with the Treasury to close the financial gap between incentives in the mandate and the actual increased cost of switching to SAF for the end consumer?

[Mike Kane]

I think the good will ended with “happy birthday.”

I remind the shadow Minister that a little over 12 months ago, in one of his better videos, the then Prime Minister came out into Downing Street, looked at the sky and lauded the policy he wanted when we saw Virgin Atlantic’s 100% SAF trip across the Atlantic. This was the previous Government’s policy but, because of the sclerotic nature of that Government, we are only now getting on with implementing both the SAF mandate and the revenue support mechanism. As the shadow Minister knows, a regular review point is baked into the legislation so that we can revisit targets, if required.

[Greg Smith]

Of course, there is always another way. Much of the debate so far on SAF has been about fuels made from feedstocks and waste products. Unlike fuels that require feedstock, whose input costs will only ever go up, the industrial process that creates power-to-liquid synthetic aviation fuel will actually see its production costs reduce, with some predicting cost parity between the production of these synthetic fuels and the extraction and production of fossil fuels within a decade. Does the Minister agree that synthetics offer a much better long-term solution, and will he reprioritise the Government’s approach to SAF away from transitional solutions and towards synthetics?

[Mike Kane]

The hon. Gentleman runs his car on synthetic fuel, so I know his passion. There are many ways to get to SAF. The SAF mandate is supported by industry, and there is a real opportunity to establish a plethora of production. We can create thousands of new well-paid jobs while protecting the pound in the holidaymaker’s pocket.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

9. Whether she has made an assessment of the potential merits of compensation for rail passengers in Cheltenham due to the impact of the Old Oak Common station development.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)]

T7. Since Brexit and the reinstatement of duty-free shopping, UK travellers have spent nearly 50% more on their duty-free shopping, all in the EU. Not a penny has supported jobs or investment in Scottish airports, or those in the wider UK. Does the Minister agree that a way to repatriate those sales and support the travel sector to invest in jobs at international gateways would be introducing arrival duty free, and will he work with the Treasury and the travel sector to achieve that?

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

Changes made during the pandemic crippled airport duty-free shopping. I will get the hon. Member a more detailed letter on the matter.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

York’s advanced digital and advanced rail cluster can really boost our economy with the innovations that it is bringing, as well as providing 5,500 jobs in York. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss how we can bring it into her strategy for developing the rail industry?

MV Ruby: Safety

Mike Kane Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Commons Chamber

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

Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is the season of good will.

First and foremost, I want to say that I am proud of this nation. I think I am prouder of this nation than the hon. Gentleman is. The United Kingdom has a proud seafaring heritage, and we are the home of the International Maritime Organisation. We uphold the rule of law in this country, and we treat seafarers with respect and dignity. We fulfil our legal obligations, and we proud to be pioneers in the maritime industry. These principles informed how we handled this situation.

The MV Ruby left Great Yarmouth on 1 December with no cargo onboard and is now at the Port of Tyne, where she is undergoing repairs. The ship left Great Yarmouth with uncontaminated cargo on 16 December for onward voyage to the Ruby’s original intended destinations. Throughout this situation, my Department and other authorities exercised their duties for the safety of the UK and its population, and for that of the ship and her crew. I stand by all the decisions and actions that we took, and I note that everything has been resolved successfully. We were always confident that that would be the case.

I will briefly set out the background. The MV Ruby is a Maltese-flagged vessel that was damaged during a storm on 23 August 2024, not long after leaving port in northern Russia. The vessel entered UK waters on 24 September 2024 under international legal provisions that allow for the right of innocent passage through territorial waters. She went to anchor in order to refuel, but at anchor she posed a number of potential risks to UK interests—namely, the safety of navigation for other vessels. We were also worried about the safety of the crew, their welfare and the safety of the ship.

There were no sanctions issues in relation to the ship, her crew or her cargo, and she was insured by Lloyd’s of London, which is internationally regarded as having the highest standards for its clients and strong requirements for the insurance companies that conduct business there. The vessel is class certified by Det Norske Veritas, which is one of the 12 world-renowned classification societies within the International Association of Classification Societies. That demonstrated to us that the vessel was operating well within the recommended industry guidelines.

Before entering the Port of Great Yarmouth, the Ruby had been at anchor for a month. The ship was damaged, and the crew were struggling to get basic supplies. At this point, media reporting focused on the perceived Russian connections of the Ruby, as her origin port was in Russia. This made potential suppliers fear Russian exposure and reputational damage, which further impacted the quality of life on board. Beyond this humanitarian aspect, the extent of the damage to the hull was unknown, and the practical and environmental consequences of the vessel sinking in UK waters, with all her cargo and fuel on board, would have been unthinkable.

Given all this, and where safety requirements were met, there was no reason to deny access to port. The Secretary of State’s representative for maritime salvage and intervention, SOSREP, supported the ship’s management company in convening conversations with UK ports to identify an appropriate port for the offloading of this cargo type and a yard where she could then be repaired.

The ship’s management company made a commercial decision to enter a UK port for repairs. This was because the conditions in the bay of Biscay, which the vessel would have had to traverse, can be extremely rough at this time of year. The crew of 19 on board had already suffered through the original storm and subsequent weeks on board a damaged ship. Offering her refuge in port helped to manage all these risks, and at that point, there was no indication of concern about her cargo.

Ammonium nitrate, for a bit of background, is a compound typically used in fertiliser that the UK regularly imports. In 2023, over 200,000 tonnes of ammonium nitrate were handled at UK ports, and the port of Great Yarmouth is one of the many ports experienced in handling this type of cargo. Once at port, the cargo was safely offloaded for several days before any potential contamination was identified.

The Health and Safety Executive was alerted to the potential contamination on Monday 11 November, as the port identified evidence of seawater and hydrocarbons —fuel oil—on the outside of the bags. When it was identified that seawater and hydrocarbons were present on the outside of some of the remaining bags, all movement of cargo in the affected hold was stopped, and the relevant authorities were notified.

HSE undertook a risk assessment, and its findings were actioned by the port and the ship operator. The port’s harbourmaster made the decision to issue a direction under the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847, following the guidance provided by the HSE at a cross-agency meeting, and classified the vessel as a dangerous ship. SOSREP was engaged and worked with the ship, the port, the MCA and the HSE to ensure that the ship and the crew were safely removed from port.

The ship was removed from port on Saturday 16 November, and the affected cargo was discharged at a pre-identified location at sea. The master of the ship took the view that, in the light of deteriorating conditions at sea and the unacceptable risk to the crew of the potentially contaminated material remaining on board as the sea became rougher due to the incoming weather front, disposal should commence that evening. The cargo believed to be contaminated represented under 2% of the total volume being transported.

Discharging the potentially contaminated cargo at sea, about 300 metric tonnes, was not an exercise undertaken lightly. As would be expected, there was careful and thorough examination of all the alternative options. A full assessment of the environmental implications and safety risks was also undertaken. The work was overseen by environmental experts and the relevant regulators. The East of England environment group was convened for the purposes of this incident and was comprised of experts from: the Food Standards Agency; the Joint Nature Conservation Committee; the local authority; the Marine Management Organisation; the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science; Natural England; the Environment Agency; and the inshore fisheries and conservation authority.

The location chosen for disposal was identified as the least sensitive in terms of habitat, flora, fauna and fisheries. The site is an existing aggregate extraction area, involving mechanical activity on the seabed. We have been assured by scientific experts from both the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the East of England environment group that ammonium nitrate is not a persistent chemical and, with sufficient dilution, will dissipate without leaving a trace.

As would be expected, DEFRA is now going through the standard procedure of notifying the relevant international authorities of the discharging event, as the British Government treat our duties to the natural environment with the highest seriousness.

Where safety requirements are met, there is no basis for the UK Government to refuse entry into port in those circumstances. After the potentially contaminated cargo had been discharged, the port and ship operator followed the usual processes to enable the MV Ruby to return to Great Yarmouth with advice from the MCA, HSE and environmental regulators. Allowing the ship to return ensured crew welfare and enabled the normal transfer of its remaining cargo. I must emphasise that there was no evidence that any of the remaining cargo was potentially contaminated, and this was borne out by events. No further contamination was found.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

If there was no potential contamination and if all the processes were fully followed, as the Minister is indicating, then presumably the Government will have no problem ensuring that all that documentation is made available and public, in a transparent and open way, so that we can have no doubts about that, and any lessons that need to be learned, will be learned.

[Mike Kane]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and wish him a happy Christmas as well; we share the same dry cleaner, Mr George, who regularly asks after the hon. Gentleman. I say to Reform Members that the way this matter is being raised is a playbook: assertions, which are often outlandish or simply wrong, are made that are designed to appeal to malcontents; victimisation comes in that playbook, because they habitually cast themselves as the victim of dark forces, conspiracies and cover-ups, always wanting to know where and when, and to have transparency; they expect others to accept the premise of their questions, but then belittle the officials and workers who have worked extraordinarily hard, often in difficult circumstances in our seas. By belittling those officials and workers, Reform Members are trying to make people believe those officials are wrong and they are right. I think there should be little bit more dignity in the approach taken by Reform Members in this matter.

I have had correspondence with officials at Norfolk county council and Great Yarmouth borough council, as well as the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) and the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), who is no longer in his place. I would like to offer my personal gratitude and thanks to the officials at the Health and Safety Executive, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and Peel Ports in Great Yarmouth for their co-operation and diligent work throughout the period. I also thank the captain and the crew of the ship for their co-operation during this episode.

I am pleased that, by following the expert advice, this episode has concluded safely and successfully. Our ports, and the men and women who work in them, are invaluable assets to our nation, but we can all be guilty of failing to fully recognise the vital role they play in the life of our island nation. I would like this debate to record the respect and gratitude this House has for them and their work. Our Christmases will be a lot merrier thanks to them all.

Merry Christmas to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, the staff and the House, and a blessed new year as well.

Question put and agreed to.

Gatwick Airspace Modernisation Review

Mike Kane Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) on securing this timely and important debate.

The UK’s airspace is some of the most complex in the world, yet there has been little change to its overall structure since the 1950s. If a pilot from that time came back to the future in a TARDIS, he would be flying the same pathways as he did in the 1950s. The system was designed closer to the time Yuri Gagarin was in space than to today.

Modernising our airspace can deliver quicker, quieter and cleaner journeys. Airspace modernisation will use new technologies to create direct routes and faster climbs, and will reduce the need for holding stacks. It will mean that the aviation industry can grow safely and that customers will experience more reliable services, which are particularly needed at Gatwick. Importantly, there will be opportunities to reduce noise and carbon emissions.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

In my constituency of Tunbridge Wells there is only one noise monitor, in the village of Rusthall. Although we are all in favour of airspace modernisation—the Minister makes some great points about it—how can we know that it will not merely move the noise problem around, or even make it worse? Will the Government commit to expanding the number of noise monitors in affected communities, such as mine in Tunbridge Wells, before they implement the proposal?

[Mike Kane]

I gently remind the hon. Member that I grew up under the flight path at Manchester airport, so I remember the BAC One-Elevens, the Tridents and the Concordes. I even saw the space shuttle do a low pass on a jumbo jet. Through modern technology, noise envelopes are reducing considerably.

The hon. Member for Horsham talked about carbon; who knew that if we actually flew our planes in straight lines, we would reduce the carbon emissions from our aviation sector by up to about 10%? That would benefit not just every community but the planet too.

The first step in modernising Gatwick’s airspace affects routes heading south to the airport, as the hon. Member for Horsham said, which have minimal interactions with other airports. To achieve those changes, Gatwick is following the Civil Aviation Authority’s CAP 1616 process, as he mentioned. The process was revised earlier this year to make it fairer and more transparent and to provide an opportunity for comprehensive engagement with local communities and stakeholders who may be affected by airspace changes. It is worth pointing out that that was a key manifesto commitment of ours at the general election. That was right because, given the implications of airspace changes for local communities and the environment, it is necessary that they are subject to robust and transparent procedures.

One of the most complex and pressing aspects of airspace modernisation is the need to redesign the outdated flightpaths into and from our airports, such as those at Gatwick. Gatwick airport participates in a fundamental component of the Department’s airspace modernisation programme: the future airspace strategy implementation programme. FASI is a UK-wide upgrade of terminal airspace, involving 20 airports working in collaboration with the Airspace Change Organising Group and NATS to co-ordinate a more efficient airspace system.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I appreciate the tone with which the Minister is approaching this issue, which he knows has been a matter of great frustration for the past few years that I have been in Parliament. The key to the FASI programme is surely making the efficiency work. I will not comment on the Minister’s understanding of aerodynamics, given his comment about the TARDIS flying, which is a slightly different question—

[Mike Kane]

It is the space-time continuum.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Exactly—it is not quite aerodynamics, and not exactly a flight route.

But this debate does involve flight routes, and there is extra pressure on communities. The Department’s policy, certainly until now—the Minister may have changed it—was to reduce the number of people significantly affected by aircraft noise. Yet going from a flight every 20 minutes to a flight every 100 seconds will apply enormous pressure in a community like Cowden, right next to where I live in west Kent. That is clearly a major change.

I appreciate that noise management has changed in the years since the Minister was growing up near Manchester airport, and I appreciate his points about efficiency—we all welcome efficiency in aircraft routes and, I hope, the greater profit for aircraft users and the resultant cheaper tickets—but will he also recognise that that efficiency needs to be shared with compensation on the ground? If we were to build a motorway next to somebody’s house, we would compensate them, or it would at least require various permissions. This should be no different. It is a motorway in the air.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Kane]

Gatwick did pass stage 2 of the CAA’s CAP 1616 process. That is a transparent process, and it is fully consulted on at stage 3. The right hon. Member mentions noise in particular, which I know is a sensitive issue. I understand how the changes to flight paths as part of the airspace modernisation process can also change how noise is distributed. As ever, we need to strike a fair balance between the impact of aviation on the local environment and communities, and the economic benefits that Gatwick brings to its local community, as well as its national importance. With airspace modernisation and performance-enhancing beacons, we can be more flexible.

As Gatwick has more than 50,000 movements a year, it is obliged under the environmental noise regulations to produce noise action plans, which act as a driver for the management of aircraft noise and for mitigation around airports. Gatwick’s current noise plan sets out its ambition for managing noise between 2024 and 2028; I encourage all Members to get involved in that.

For several decades, the Government have set out noise controls, including restrictions on night operations at Gatwick airport. The controls reflect the need to balance the impact on communities with the benefits to the economy. I am pleased to announce that yesterday the Government published their decision to maintain the current restrictions at Gatwick, Heathrow and Stansted until 2028. Additionally, airspace modernisation will allow the introduction of new technology, such as performance-based navigation, which will enhance the accuracy of where aircraft fly and provide better opportunities to provide respite for noise-sensitive areas.

One of the main objectives of our airspace modernisation strategy is environmental sustainability. This key principle is applied throughout all modernisation activities and takes into account the interest of all affected stakeholders. The UK has committed to an ambitious target to reach net zero by 2050. We were the first major world economy to enact such a law. We continue to work together with industry to consider the best ways to support the aviation industry to de-carbonise, including through the jet zero taskforce. Airspace modernisation can help us to reach our target by reducing delays and allowing aircraft to fly in more direct routes. That should result in far less fuel burn, and therefore reduce our carbon omissions and potentially the noise impact of flights.

To improve confidence in the delivery of airspace modernisation across the south-east region, my Department and the CAA have launched a consultation on our proposals for a new UK airspace design service. The proposals set out our ambitions to create a single guiding mind responsible for the holistic design of airspace change, to the benefit of all who use our airspace and are affected. I encourage Members to get behind this change. The hon. Member for Horsham is right that there is not a vast wave of expertise in this area in our nation. Our ambition is to bring together the best minds to improve airspace across the whole UK.

[John Milne]

I recognise that the Minister has not finished, but I am concerned that his points have, so far, been general. I wholly support the overall ambitions to reduce carbon emissions—I have absolutely no problem with that—but there are two issues. First, the consultation is not a genuine one because there is no real choice. Secondly, we are moving away from a route that is already used and is perfectly reasonable to one with significant resident impacts. I am concerned that the Minister has not addressed those two key issues.

[Mike Kane]

As I have already stated, there is full public consultation at stage 3, and the hon. Member and his constituents will have the right to fully engage in that. I do encourage people to engage in this issue, because we have to modernise our airspace. It will take some time, a lot of energy and a lot of expertise, but it is the right thing to do by our nation.

To conclude, airspace modernisation is vital to unlocking the benefits of a growing UK aviation sector. Without modernising the airspace, we cannot realise the benefits to passengers, communities, operators and the economy. This must be achieved in a sustainable way that minimises the impact on local communities while balancing the strategic benefits that Gatwick airport can bring to the economy.

I thank all Members—the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), the hon. Members for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) and for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett), and my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb)—for participating, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Horsham on securing this important debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Mike Kane Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2024.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I will not burst into song, if that is okay. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 23 October.

As a member state of the International Civil Aviation Organisation, the UK has agreed to implement international standards and recommended practices—SARPs—in domestic law. SARPs are technical specifications for aviation safety contained in annexes to the convention on international civil aviation and adopted by ICAO. As a member state, we are obliged to implement any amendments made to SARPs in domestic law, unless it is impractical to comply or not relevant to our system. Where that is the case, member states must file a difference notifying the ICAO that there are discrepancies between SARPs and domestic law. The majority of differences are filed by the UK either because legislative changes are yet to be undertaken or are in progress, because they are legacy differences inherited from assimilated EU regulations that we will incorporate over time, or because they are not appropriate for the UK system.

The objective of this statutory instrument is broadly twofold. First, by updating UK law to comply with amendments to annexes 6 and 14 to the convention on international civil aviation, it will ensure that domestic aviation law meets an internationally agreed level of aviation safety. The updates pertain to enhancing fuel planning systems; to widening the scope of all-weather operations—that is, the ability of aircraft to take off and land in low-visibility conditions; and to improving flight crew training and checking. There are also updates to new and continuing airworthiness requirements relating to safety management systems.

Secondly, the statutory instrument corrects and supplements amendments to assimilated law made by the Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2023. It also reinstates two provisions that were erroneously removed by the Aviation Safety (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.

Before I turn to my closing comments, I draw to the Committee’s attention some minor typographical errors that have been identified in the statutory instrument since it was laid before the House. A correction slip has been issued to amend the errors and the corrections have been incorporated into the draft regulations. At the request of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, a revised explanatory memorandum has also been laid, which now includes a link to the Civil Aviation Authority’s consultation response document on all-weather operations and fuel planning and management.

We must continue to ensure that aviation remains among the safest forms of travel, and that the safety of the travelling public is a key and No. 1 priority for everyone in this room. Some of the provisions in the draft regulations introduce new ways of using pre-existing technology, with the aim of increasing efficiency while maintaining safety standards. The provisions also correct errors to make it certain that regulations are clear. By upholding our commitments to implement international aviation safety law, we maintain both high aviation safety standards and our reputation as a world leader in aviation safety.

Before I finish, I put on the record—I am sure I speak for everybody in the room—our sadness at the crash in Vilnius yesterday and the death of the pilot of the DHL flight. Safety should, for many reasons, always be top of our priorities. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Kane]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham on his elevation to his current position and look forward to working with him over the years to come. I had quite the turnaround in my three years of opposition, so I hope he stays longer than some of his his predecessors. It is great to welcome him. I recently spent some time with him in Northern Ireland, where we had an extraordinarily good fact-finding trip and did some relationship building with the Executive there. He should always be proud of the work his father did as Secretary of State to bring peace to our islands.

I thank Members for their consideration of the draft regulations. The hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham asked me a number of questions, the first of which was about impact assessments. A full impact assessment was submitted with and published alongside the explanatory memorandum on the Government legislation website, so I direct him to that. It assesses the impact of amending the legislation to align with the latest ICAO SARPs concerning fuel planning and management.

The hon. Member asked about fuel. We do not think there will be significant carbon savings based on this SI, because only a few large operators will take advantage of the new fuel schemes, and only in some limited circumstances. However, I direct the hon. Member to our manifesto commitment on sustainable aviation fuel, for which we have already laid the mandate for 2%, starting on 1 January 2025, which I signed into law just the other week. That will start to grow a sustainable aviation fuel industry in the UK and begin to decarbonise our skies.

On the stacking issue that the hon. Member rightly talked about, our second key manifesto commitment was on airspace modernisation. If only we could get our planes to fly in a straight line and not in circles, we would immediately begin to decarbonise our skies. There is an easyJet plane that flies from Jersey to Luton and probably emits about 35% more carbon than it should because of the route it has to take, because we have an analogue system in a digital age. The Government are hugely committed to our two key manifesto commitments on decarbonising our skies.

On section 14 and the regulatory burden, we consider that the overall effects of the changes made under this IS will not increase the regulatory burden in this particular area. New Members should know that this is a “take back control” SI. We were a member of the European Union Aviation Safety Agency but we came out of it, and now we have to do the typos ourselves. That is the power we now possess. It would have been done elsewhere and on somebody else’s dime.

On the Prime Minister’s huge commitment on the 81%—I said at a conference the other day, “Where did he get the 1% from? Where’s that particular saving?”—the Government have embarked on an ambitious project with our missions, and we have to do it because the climate is changing. I run the lighthouses in this country, and our operatives could spend less time at sea. Storm Bert this week meant that my journey took four hours instead of two, because of flooding and damage. We have emitted trillions of tonnes of carbon. We cannot afford to begin to emit that much again. We have to change. I am sure Members from all parties agree that the international situation is getting more dire by the day. We have to become energy secure. The commitment to do that by 2030 is hugely key.

The safety of aviation and the travelling public is a priority for this Government, as it is for every Government—

[Jerome Mayhew]

I know the Minister was trying hard to answer all my questions, but he may have forgotten to clarify the Government’s position on airport capacity, so I will give a second opportunity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Kane]

The hon. Member mentioned the Climate Change Committee’s recommendation that we should consider a demand-management system; we will formally respond to the CCC on that in the new year. My view is that Mr and Mrs Jones in my constituency should be able to take their annual holiday in Europe because they have worked hard all year.

We have never, on our side of the House, talked about demand management; I wonder whether it is a new policy of His Majesty’s official Opposition—[Interruption.] I hear the hon. Member saying from a sedentary position that it is not. It is hugely important that we decarbonise our airports, our maritime sector and our airlines, and we are doing that through our manifesto commitments on the sustainable aviation fuel mandate over the years ahead and on the airspace modernisation projects. Airports themselves are the easier bit to decarbonise, and most of them have a strategy to decarbonise themselves over the next few years. The hard part of the equation will always be the things that take off and land at our airports. There will be no demand management on this side of the aisle.

The safety of aviation and the travelling public is a priority for the Government. The Department for Transport is committed to ensuring that aviation remains safe. As part of that work, the draft regulations form part of an important legislative programme that implements international aviation safety standards in domestic law. Furthermore, the implementation of international law ensures that the UK remains a world leader in maintaining aviation safety standards and meeting our obligations. With that, I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Kane Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

1. What recent discussions she has had with the Mayor of London on financial support for Transport for London.

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

Mr Speaker, as maritime Minister, I pay tribute to John Prescott both for his life at sea and for introducing the tonnage tax back in 2000 as Secretary of State for Transport, which secured the UK’s position as a world leader in maritime services and trained a new generation of seafarers.

We continue to work collaboratively with City Hall, Transport for London and other mayors on long-term transport plans, providing lasting benefits for the public and the economy.

[Bob Blackman]

I join the Minister in expressing my sympathy to the family of John Prescott. He will be dearly missed across the House and in the other place.

The previous Conservative Government allocated £6.6 billion to subsidise the work of Transport for London, particularly to subsidise the fare box during the pandemic. I understand from the Budget that the Chancellor allocated £485 million to TfL, but the figure may include £220 million already announced to finance Elizabeth line trains. If that is discounted, that leaves £265 million. Can the Minister confirm that the position is that the Government have suspended the de facto right of the Mayor of London to freeze fares and that they are requiring an inflation-busting 4.6% rise in fares in London?

[Mike Kane]

This is a devolved matter. As the hon. Member said, at the Budget we announced £485 million in capital funding for Transport for London. Shortly afterwards, the local transport Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), and the deputy Mayor met to discuss that. It is a matter for Transport for London. I am sure the hon. Member has a first-class relationship with the Mayor and I am sure he will press him on it.

[Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)]

2. What steps she is taking to improve the accessibility of aviation for disabled people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

5. If she will make an assessment of the effectiveness of local bus services in enabling children’s travel to school.

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

The Government know how important local bus services are in providing access to education. We have set out an ambitious programme of reform to empower local leaders to improve services for passengers, including through the introduction of the buses Bill, to ensure that they better reflect the needs of local communities.

[Mike Martin]

I, too, associate myself with the remarks about Lord Prescott.

In my constituency of Tunbridge Wells, a group of parents have told me about the difficulties that their children have in getting to Skinners’ Kent academy. The children can get either the No. 2 or the No. 297. The first one gets them to school 90 minutes early, so they have to wait by the side of a busy road in the cold and the dark, and the latter gets them there 15 minutes late. Over a school year, that is 50 hours of education. Kent was given £23 million for bus services. Beyond giving the money, what will the Department for Transport be doing to ensure that the money will increase the frequency of services so that children can get to school on time?

[Mr Speaker]

I think an Adjournment debate may be needed.

[Mike Kane]

Well, Mr Speaker, I do not know the particular details of the No. 2 or the No. 297—[Interruption.] Forgive me. As the hon. Member has pointed out, Kent county council has been given £23.1 million as part of our £1 billion package for buses. We are righting a lot of wrongs over the underfunding of rural services, in particular, over the years, and we expect to see a much better bus service across our whole country in the future.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

May I, too, associate myself with the tributes paid to John Prescott?

Over the past few weeks, a number of parents have contacted me to ask whether school transport can be brought into the scope of the bus fare cap. Will the Minister agree to look at that?

[Mike Kane]

Services from participating operators that serve schools are open to members of the public and run all year round and will be eligible for inclusion in the scheme. The current fare cap does not allow for the inclusion of closed school services at the moment—that is for logistic reasons, I understand.

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

In the statement on bus services on Monday, I asked the Secretary of State about extending concessionary travel to children and young people. Her response was to suggest that MPs should talk to our individual local authorities about this, but that is not the approach that we take to concessionary travel for pensioners. I have just been contacted by somebody aged over 16 who cannot afford to go to college because it would cost £1,500 a year, and her family just cannot afford that. Is it not the case that concessionary bus travel for children and young people should be extended on a national basis, rather than having this postcode lottery?

[Mike Kane]

As a former schoolteacher, I know how important getting children to education is, and those bus services provide vital lines. That is why we have put £1 billion into our bus services network. I suggest that local services, such as mine in the Bee Network in Greater Manchester, have used their resource to improve access to education for young people.

[Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)]

Rural communities in towns and villages such as Holwell in my constituency, which I visited last week, often depend on buses for their day-to-day life and for getting their children to school, but all too often the reliability of these services makes it increasingly hard for families to depend on them. What new powers and funding will this Government be giving transport authorities, such as Hertfordshire and Central Bedfordshire, to ensure that they can get buses for my community back on track?

[Mike Kane]

Like our rail users, bus users depend on punctuality. Our bus services have not been up to scratch, with vast underfunding over the past few years. We are hoping that the £955 million investment in our buses will give local communities the powers they need to hold operators to account on the punctuality of those buses, so that our young people can get to their colleges and schools on time.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

6. What steps she is taking to improve transport infrastructure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

12. What steps she is taking to improve the accessibility of railway stations for disabled people.

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

Ensuring that rail services and facilities are accessible to all is a core principle of our plan to fix Britain’s broken rail system. The Department is carefully considering the best approach to station accessibility, and recognises the huge social and economic benefits it brings to communities. MPs and stakeholders will be updated in due course.

[Andrew Cooper]

After Northwich station collapsed in 2021, an Access for All application was submitted, with the support of local partners, to add step-free access to the Chester-bound platform. Unfortunately, that opportunity was missed by the last Government, and the station has been rebuilt without those accessibility improvements. I welcome the inclusion of improving accessibility in Great British Railways’ mandate, but what steps can be taken to ensure that stations such as Northwich see improvements while we wait for GBR to get up and running?

[Mike Kane]

First, I thank my hon. Friend for picking up the baton on Northwich station—we all remember the terrible situation when the canopy collapsed. This Government are committed to improving the accessibility of the railway, and recognise its huge social and economic benefits. The Access for All programme will deliver 32 step-free stations this financial year, the most since that programme started. Anyone unable to use a station in the meantime can book alternative transport with the operator at no additional cost.

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

14. If she will take steps to help reduce overcrowding on Chiltern Railways services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

17. What steps she is taking to decarbonise the transport sector.

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

The Government are committed to delivering greener transport. The Department is overhauling public transport services to make the sustainable choice the most convenient choice. It is turbocharging the roll-out of electric vehicles and charging infrastructure, and it is making the UK a world leader in the production and use of sustainable aviation fuels.

[Dr Sandher]

Transport is decarbonising more slowly than other sectors because, while car emissions have fallen by 20% since 1990, haulage emissions have barely moved. Earlier this month, my constituency hosted the East Midlands Hydrogen summit, where we saw how heavy goods vehicles can be powered through green, clean hydrogen. What steps is the Department taking, and what steps will it take, to support green hydrogen in the use of heavy goods vehicles?

[Mike Kane]

It is great that my hon. Friend is such a champion of hydrogen. The Department’s £200 million zero emission HGV and infrastructure demonstration programme is funding hundreds of hydrogen fuel cell and battery electric HGVs and their refuelling and recharging infrastructure. To support the transition to zero emission HGVs, data will be published and widely shared with the haulage and logistics industry.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

Yesterday, Ford announced that 4,000 jobs are going across Europe, including 800 here, many of which are in my constituency of Basildon and Billericay. There are real concerns about the lack of take-up of electric vehicles because the Government are not providing clear enough long-term support, and about the extra taxes imposed on both ICE—internal combustion engine—vehicles and electric vehicles through vehicle excise duty at the Budget. Would the Minister meet me and other affected MPs to see what can be done to address these important issues affecting workers in our constituencies?

[Mike Kane]

The right hon. Member is right to raise this, and the Secretary of State did meet Ford yesterday. We understand that this is a concerning time for workers at Ford, especially as it is a significant player in the UK’s automotive industry. We committed £200 million in the Budget for this area of work, and we hope to alleviate the situation as soon as humanly possible.

[Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)]

18. What financial support she is providing to local transport authorities and mayors.

Aircraft Noise: Local Communities

Mike Kane Excerpts

Thursday 14th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[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 ---

[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.

Flight Cancellations

Mike Kane Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if she will make a statement on the ongoing connectivity issues caused by belatedly announced cancellations of flights, such as those between Belfast and London.

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

I thank the hon. Gentleman for an opportunity to talk about these important issues. It is unusual that we are doing so in an urgent question, not in an Adjournment debate, which is the debate in which he normally intervenes.

[Mr Speaker]

I have gone soft.

[Mike Kane]

I know that the issue of connectivity across the UK is of great interest to the hon. Gentleman and many of his constituents, as connectivity strengthens the bond between our communities. Cancellations affect passengers and businesses, who rely on punctual services and connections, and have an impact on confidence. It is the responsibility of airlines and airports to work together to minimise delays and cancellations. Connectivity across our country is vital; the Government jointly fund three public service obligation routes to London, including from Derry/Londonderry.

However, the UK aviation market operates predominantly in the private sector, and it is for airports to invest in their infrastructure and for airlines to determine the routes that they operate. I recognise the importance of Belfast City and Belfast International airports for local communities and businesses. The Department for Transport is actively engaging with regional airports, including those in Northern Ireland, to understand how the Government can support and unlock opportunities for growth.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for that answer. Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We would not have a United Kingdom without her, and Members in this Chamber would be a lot poorer for the lack of Northern Ireland. We are thankful to be a part of these British isles, and have fought hard to remain so. However, being a part constitutionally and being a part practically are very different things, and the fact is that people need to take a plane or a boat to come across to the mainland. Three million passengers travelled on scheduled domestic flights in the UK between July and September 2021, and the third and fourth most popular routes were between Belfast and London. We have a huge share of domestic routes, and the reason is clear: people in these parts of the United Kingdom have such strong links, and such a strong need to go between them.

Yesterday, a cancellation text was sent to passengers booked on a flight from Belfast City airport to London City airport. The passengers on that flight were not simply frustrated businessmen and women; they included a disabled person who had arranged special assistance, a person on their way to a health appointment in London, and a family getting a connecting flight to their holiday destination. We understand that bad weather can affect flight patterns, and sometimes these things are unavoidable, but my understanding is that yesterday’s flight was cancelled back in September. It is the flight that never was. They took our money, took our boarding passes and let us through security, but the plane was not there. It is quite unbelievable.

The person going to the London hospital was booked on a flight seven hours later, completely missing their appointment. For the business people, their day was gone. The holidaymakers’ connection had flown. Those attending Great Ormond Street children’s hospital or other hospitals missed appointments, as did businessmen and businesswomen—the whole thing was unbelievable. There were no announcements in Belfast City airport, although we were all waiting for the flight that never was—100 people from across Northern Ireland.

I could understand if this were an anomaly, but it is fast becoming a norm—one that will affect business investment and tourism in Northern Ireland. Procedures need to be urgently reviewed. There is to be additional air passenger duty; I hope that some of the additional money raised from people travelling within the UK can be used to ensure that airlines live up to their responsibilities and maintain connectivity as a priority. Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Minister as well.

[Mr Speaker]

The limit is normally two minutes. I know you are making up for that flight yesterday, and of course the House missed you—that is why you got the UQ.

[Mike Kane]

Business and tourism are vital for growth, as the hon. Gentleman said. We did have some connectivity problems and cancellations due to Storm Ashley recently, and I am sorry to hear about his constituents missing appointments, particularly his disabled constituents. The Secretary of State will lead work in this space, because accessibility on flights is vital. Belfast is still served by 22 to 35 flights a day, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman takes the issue up with airlines and the airport.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

Last month, 18 flights between Belfast City and Heathrow were cancelled, and I can only imagine how difficult that must be for Members from Northern Ireland and their constituents. The previous Transport Committee, in its aviation reform inquiry, recommended that the Government revise the public service obligation routes and the subsidies to improve domestic air connectivity. Does the Minister agree that that is important to connecting Northern Ireland with the rest of the UK, and will he bring forward work on that?

[Mike Kane]

I thank the Chair of the Transport Committee for the excellent work that she does in this field. Cancellations are bad for business, tourism and passengers. The public service obligation arrangements come up for renewal regularly, and I think that flight prices, connectivity and cancellations should be looked at in the round when we come to renew them.

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

Flight cancellations are a significant issue that we took seriously in government, and worked across the sector to tackle. I am proud that in government we published the aviation passenger charter, which included clearer advice on how passengers can resolve issues to do with cancelled and delayed flights, as well as missing baggage and the rights of disabled passengers. In 2023, we halved air passenger duty for domestic flights. We also made a commitment to strengthen the powers of the Civil Aviation Authority. Does the Minister intend to take that forward? When in government, we also published “Flight path to the future”, which included a substantial framework for increasing the efficiency of the aviation system and supporting passengers as we move further towards the goal of sustainable aviation. What further steps will the Minister take to ensure that the measures that we set out to improve the aviation sector and the passenger experience are taken forward?

Frankly, this Government have failed the public so far. Last week’s Budget was, in large part, an attack on workers, businesses, farmers and the aviation sector. The Government’s decision to increase air passenger duty has led to a worried response from the passenger aviation sector, and Ryanair has already announced its intention of cutting flights to and from UK airports by 10%. The Government have so far shown themselves to be deeply uninterested in the consequences of their actions for workers, farmers and now air passengers. More in hope than expectation, I ask the Minister: what steps will the Government take to improve the relationship with the passenger aviation sector and ensure that passengers are well served?

[Mike Kane]

I say with all candour to the hon. Gentleman that I remember that during covid—I shadowed this brief at the time—there was no specific package for airlines, airports or airport handlers. That meant that we came out of covid in a much worse position than we would have if the Government had implemented their own Treasury’s proposals. We will take no lectures about our support for aviation. On his question about rights for passengers, we will look at strengthening those going forward. APD went up by less than inflation—it had not been increased in a number of years—but I refer him to the Treasury for more detailed answers on tax matters.

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I think we have finally figured out why the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has not yet been able to make it to Northern Ireland.

I thank the Government and the Northern Ireland Executive for their recent commitment to the City of Derry airport. The public service obligation on the Heathrow route is very important for connectivity to the north-west of Ireland. When the Minister reviews the PSO for the next tranche of funding we hope to get, will he do some work with the airlines to bring fares down? They are out of reach for many people in the area.

[Mike Kane]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for all he does in this space. I join him in encouraging the shadow Secretary of State to go to Northern Ireland, which is a fine country. The hon. Gentleman knows that I visit regularly, coming through Belfast and Derry/Londonderry. It is a great place to live, visit, work and do business. On the specific points about prices, I think there are 19 flights or more a week in summer from Derry/Londonderry, which is well connected. I suggest that the hon. Member gets involved with the airlines and the airport owners but, yes, we can look at that when we come up to review the public sector obligation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I can sympathise with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and I thank him for tabling the urgent question, because we consistently have the same problem at Edinburgh and other Scottish airports, with a lack of connectivity and the disruption that that causes. I understand that the weather was a key reason for the delays this weekend, but another was delays at air traffic control, which is under pressure because of staff shortages and rising traffic. Eurocontrol, the main organisation supporting European airspace, has warned that to keep passengers safe and stop disruption better co-ordination is required between aircraft operators, airports and others across the continent.

Will the Minister tell me what conversations the Secretary of State has had with European partners on building resilience in air traffic control? Do the Government have confidence in the robustness of air traffic control in the UK to serve our connectivity properly?

[Mike Kane]

Officials engage regularly with their counterparts across Europe and the European Union. The Government have committed to airspace modernisation, which will improve resilience. I look forward to support from Liberal Democrat Members in the near future as we progress towards modernising airspace right across our great nation and nations.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his response and for reiterating the importance of getting regional air connections right, as that can help to underpin economic growth. I hope he agrees that we should not allow ourselves to be distracted. Does he agree that large parts of our country could be better served by better regional rail connections, which would hopefully reduce some of the congestion at our airports?

[Mike Kane]

Public transport penetration within an hour of an airport is vital and is a key performance indicator for how airports can grow and serve people better. Better rail, better bus, better road links and better active travel to our airports are critical for this industry.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

Aberdeen airport is another that struggles with cancelled flights. Over 4% of flights were cancelled last year, which makes it one of the airports with the highest cancellation rates in the country. Does the Minister agree that we must make sure that all our regions in the UK, including Scotland, have a reliable connection, especially to London, for things such as business travel? Linking our rural communities to urban centres is really important, so what can his Government do to make sure that those things improve?

[Mike Kane]

I thank the hon. Member for standing up for her local airport in Aberdeen. As someone who recently caught a connecting flight in Manchester from Newquay, going on to Aberdeen, I can say that Loganair provided an excellent service. It was a great honour to visit Aberdeen airport recently to see its helicopter base for North sea oil and its importance to the transition that we will begin with our clean energy mission. I suggest that the hon. Member takes that up with Andy, the chief executive there, and perhaps the new director of corporate affairs, Gavin Newlands, the former MP for Paisley.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

There are no public flights from north Wales to London, so we depend on trains. Travellers on Avanti West Coast’s north Wales service endure chronic overcrowding, reduced direct services to London since covid, rolling stock breakdowns and on-the-day cancellations three to four times higher than the rest of the Avanti network. That franchise runs to 2026. What are the Government doing to make sure that Avanti offers the people of north Wales and their economy a decent—

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted, reliable regional connectivity matters. When the Minister is looking at public service obligation routes, will he consider also looking at the transparency of the data coming out of those routes, at reliability, and at penalties for failure? It cannot be right that somebody gets the additional stress of a cancelled flight when they are trying to get to a hospital appointment.

[Mike Kane]

People should not be missing hospital appointments because of cancelled planes in the aviation sector. Yes, I agree with the right hon. Member: it is a considered question, and when contracts come up for renewal we must consider them in the round to see how best they can serve the needs of the travelling public.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker, which as has been outlined is important to many of our constituents. When we sit in the airport lounge and talk to people who have had flights delayed, we see their frustration. I suspect, however, that you wish you had cancelled this urgent question—my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) delayed landing it and took so long that I saw you getting increasingly uneasy as you were listening to him.

Increasingly we are finding flights delayed by one company in particular—British Airways—which has a monopoly on these flights. There is an economic lesson to be learned, which is that monopolies are abused. One has only to look at the price charged on some occasions, when someone could fly to Australia cheaper than they can fly to London with British Airways. Sometimes BA gives technical reasons or weather reasons for delaying a flight, but often it is because planes are not full and it amalgamates flights. Will the Minister commit to investigating with BA why the Belfast route is—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think you are Jim Shannon in disguise. Come on, Minister.

[Mike Kane]

We were struggling to get the question landed; we have been taxiing for a bit, and now we are ready for take-off.

I do not want to pick on particular airlines, but I am discussing regional connectivity in the UK with airline CEOs, which I think is vital—that is the point the right hon. Member makes. I point out gently that Belfast International is a great airport to fly through, and it is well served, not just by a single operator. It has multiple operators serving multiple airports, particularly in the south-east.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

In his earlier answer the Minister spoke about growth and connectivity being important. How does the £2 increase—the holiday tax being added to airport duty—make a difference, especially when Ryanair has announced that it is going to cut 5 million seats? That will have a dramatic impact on anyone wanting to travel within the UK and across Europe. What impact assessment will the Government carry out to ensure connectivity?

[Mike Kane]

I remind the hon. Member that as a tax, air passenger duty is a matter for His Majesty’s Treasury. In the Budget we announced APD rates from 2026 to 2027, to account for the previous extraordinarily high inflation under the Conservative party, and to ensure that the aviation industry continues to contribute a fair share to the public finances.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Given the dissatisfaction we are hearing about connectivity in Northern Ireland, which is a critical part of the UK, it seems to me that in the next review of the public service obligation, the Minister must commit to include Belfast City airport and a review of the operators. Will he do so?

[Mike Kane]

That is a good question, but I would do that automatically, and I extend that to the other parts of our great nation where the public service obligation applies. Let us not forget City of Derry airport, which is vital for the economy of the north-west in that fantastic part of our nation.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Everyone understands that there are cancellations due to weather and other issues beyond the control of airlines, but will the Minister meet the likes of BA to ensure that it understands the need for reliability, and for information to be given to customers as quickly and promptly as possible, so that they can take steps to make alternative arrangements if possible?

[Mike Kane]

I thank the hon. Member for his question. I recently met the chief executive of British Airways and raised regional connectivity.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

Does the Minister agree that good transport links between the rest of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland are vital for business and tourism, and that delays and cancellations look extremely bad in the eye of the public? Will he commit to contacting BA to try to resolve these issues?

[Mike Kane]

I refer the hon. Member to my previous answer: I have already raised regional connectivity with BA and other airlines. Odhran Dunne, chief executive officer of Visit Derry, has said there is a “fantastic buzz” around that airport at the moment, and around what is happening in the north-west. It is great to see the work going on with the Northern Ireland Executive in supporting that airport, which is a driver of the regional economy.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

What support will the Government provide to Northern Ireland airports to ensure our continued and improved connectivity? The previous Government promised £2.3 million to Belfast International airport in my constituency, under round 2 of the levelling-up fund, which would create jobs, reduce air and noise pollution, and improve the passenger experience. Will the Minister provide an update on that?

[Mike Kane]

It is great that the Northern Ireland Executive are up and running. In the devolution settlement they will be getting more money, and it is a matter for them how they spend it. On Northern Ireland and particularly Belfast, only this week easyJet—the biggest airline operating out of there, providing 3.8 million seats—has introduced new routes to Prague and Marrakech, and new aircraft. The future is bright for aviation in the Province.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

What conclusion does the Minister draw from the fact that dubious cancellations such as those we saw yesterday are far more prevalent where there is a commercial monopoly on the route, such as there is between Belfast City and London City airports, which was the route affected yesterday? If he draws the conclusion that connectivity is not helped by a monopoly, what action do the Government intend to take to encourage competition on such routes?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Kane]

The hon. and learned Member states that case, but there is a very open market in connectivity, with a number of airlines flying from Northern Ireland, and Belfast in particular, to the south-east and other UK destinations. I refer him to my previous answer: when public service obligations come to be reviewed we will look at the matter in the round. Rest assured that I am keen on connectivity between our great nations.

Bill Presented

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Wes Streeting, supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Yvette Cooper, Secretary Shabana Mahmood, Secretary Jonathan Reynolds, Secretary Hilary Benn, Secretary Ian Murray, Secretary Bridget Phillipson, Secretary Jo Stevens, Secretary Steve Reed, and Andrew Gwynne presented a Bill to make provision about the supply of tobacco, vapes and other products, including provision prohibiting the sale of tobacco to people born on or after 1 January 2009 and provision about the licensing of retail sales and the registration of retailers; to enable product and information requirements to be imposed in connection with tobacco, vapes and other products; to control the advertising and promotion of tobacco, vapes and other products; and to make provision about smoke-free places, vape-free places and heated tobacco-free places.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 121) with explanatory notes (Bill 121-EN).