Heathrow Airport Expansion

Debate between Christine Jardine and Fleur Anderson

Wednesday 24th May 2023 Westminster Hall

[Fleur Anderson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention. An expanded Heathrow would see an additional 175,000 trips every day. That is more than the daily rail arrivals to the whole of Birmingham, yet the proposal does not have a plan for how to deal with it. I shall say more on that later. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

What about green aviation? We are told that green aviation and green tech will catch up. Are we close to the breakthrough in alternative fuels, carbon capture or battery-powered planes that would make an expanded Heathrow sustainable and viable? No, we are not. In 2010, the aviation industry pledged to source 10% of its fuels from sustainable sources by 2020. We are in 2023; how is that going? Only 0.05% are sustainable fuels. There are no electric aircraft currently in development that could be commercially viable for long-haul flights. The green aviation revolution that could make the Heathrow expansion environmentally viable is a long way from taking off.

So what is the case against? I will talk about climate change, air quality, noise and transport. First, on climate change, the expansion is fundamentally incompatible with the Government’s own net zero target. Heathrow is the largest single polluter in the UK. Its emissions account for half of all UK aviation emissions. Its expansion proposals of 260,000 additional flights a year, on top of the existing 480,000, will increase carbon dioxide emissions from air travel by a staggering 9 million tonnes a year. As I said, that is more than the entire carbon emissions of Luxembourg.

The Government recently published their jet zero strategy; is that the answer? No. The strategy makes no attempt to set out what share of the transport carbon budget the aviation sector should be allocated or how that would be divided between airports, and it fails to articulate circumstances in which airport expansions could be compatible with climate change targets. Heathrow is just one of many airports across the UK with ambitions to expand, yet the Government has no overarching framework to guide airport expansion plans throughout the country.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

The hon. Lady is making an important speech. I also have an airport in my constituency, and it is investigating sustainable fuels. The French Government have announced that they will ban short flights when a train is an alternative; does the hon. Lady agree that such ideas should be part of the strategy we hear about from the Government? Part of the net zero strategy should be to reduce the number of ridiculously short flights in this country. I do not mean island-hopping; I mean flights between cities that are unnecessary and no one would even think about taking if we had better train routes and train services.

[Fleur Anderson]

I thank the hon. Member for that useful intervention. The need for investment in other areas instead of this expansion is the whole argument.

If we are really going to meet the net zero target, we cannot rely on the increasing long-haul flights that we are talking about at Heathrow. Can the Minister be clear about the trade-offs? If a third runway is built, does that mean that growth must be curbed at all other UK airports in order for the UK not to breach its carbon targets?

Air quality is also a major issue for my constituents in Putney. The additional 9 million tonnes of carbon dioxide that an expanded Heathrow will produce must end up somewhere. Unfortunately for residents in Putney, it will be dumped on our high street, school playgrounds and green spaces such as Putney heath.

Airspace Modernisation Strategy

Debate between Christine Jardine and Fleur Anderson

Tuesday 1st November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the progress of the Airspace Modernisation Strategy.

It is a pleasure to have you chair this debate, Sir Edward. I think it is fair to assume that if I were to say to most of my constituents—and to most people—the words “airspace modernisation strategy”, they would not necessarily immediately assume that it directly affected them or was something they might even get emotional about. But they would be wrong.

For as long as I have been elected, my inbox has been full of reactions from people reaching out to me because of their distress at the constant noise, the lack of sleep and the pollution caused by the local airport, all of which are reasons why it is difficult to overstate the importance of the current airspace modernisation exercise to our communities, to our airports themselves and, of course, to the climate.

The airspace above the UK is, as we know, some of the world’s most complex. It has been variously described as an invisible motorway network or an infrastructure in the sky, and it is at least as crucial to the UK’s domestic and international connectivity as our more tangible ground-based networks. However, its use and air routes were designed in the 1950s for a very different generation of aircraft. Modern planes and their capabilities, and modern navigation technology, make it possible to move towards having more efficiency and environmental protection.

Aircraft can now follow clearer and less complicated structures, fly more directly and reduce emissions. With such changes and modernisation, passengers can be more confident that their holidays, business trips and deliveries will not be affected by costly delays, and that they will be offered quicker, quieter and cleaner flights, which is the aim of NATS, as a founder member of the International Civil Aviation Organisation’s global coalition for sustainable aviation. We are also told that changes will make it possible to achieve the 2050 net zero emissions target that the aviation industry has set itself.

Of course, we all want the modernisation exercise to succeed, but we also have to recognise that since it was launched the circumstances have changed. It will now be more complicated and more expensive. At a time when the aviation sector is recovering from the impact of covid, the additional costs will place an enormous burden on our airports. Along with NATS, they have to follow the Civil Aviation Authority’s seven-stage CAP1616 airspace change process. That is why I felt it was important to raise this issue and its implications, to examine progress, and to ask whether more can be done to support our communities and to put our airports through this exercise more smoothly and effectively.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I have a lot of constituents writing to me about flights coming into Heathrow at 4 o’clock in the morning. Does the hon. Lady share my concern, and the concerns of my constituents, that more and more special dispensations are being given to break the Heathrow airport night-flight quota? Does she agree that as part of this modernisation all airports in urban areas should be beginning to move towards an eight-hour night-flight ban?

Environment Bill

Debate between Christine Jardine and Fleur Anderson

Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 26th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab) [V]]

I am very glad to speak today in favour of the Opposition amendments, and on behalf of the deafening voice of civil society and so many organisations and individuals across the country, including the many local members of the Putney Environment Commission in my constituency, who feel that this Bill does not go far enough.

I served on the Bill Committee last November and was disappointed that the Government did not accept any Opposition amendments, which would have improved the Bill. Today, the Minister said that

“the desperate decline of our natural environment and biodiversity has gone on for far too long.”

That is right—so why is this Bill being so delayed, and with more delays to come? How can the EU (Future Relationship) Bill be rushed through in one day, while here we are in a climate emergency—as declared by Parliament in May 2019—yet this Bill has taken a year to get to this stage and now it has been announced that the next stage will be in May? Will we even have it passed by autumn?

This leaves us without the regulation of the EU that was in place before and with no new regulator in place. Will the Minister give a final deadline date for passing this Bill, and use the time between stages to improve it? The amendments before us today would give us much-needed higher ambition through targets, and much more strength to take action on the important areas of air quality, water, waste and chemicals.

Let me turn to new clause 8. It is vital to hold producers to account to ensure that waste is prevented throughout the whole supply chain, not just at the end—for example, by reducing plastics, changing materials and rethinking product use, such as nappies.

On air pollution, Putney High Street is one of the most polluted streets in the UK, and has the poor distinction of taking places two and three in a recent table of the top 10 pollution hotspots in London. We should set our sights high and include WHO targets in the Bill, not put them up for negotiation later. The cost will be that 550,000 Londoners will develop diseases attributable to air pollution over the next 30 years if we do not take strong action.

On amendment 24 on chemical regulation and setting up a whole new regulation in the UK when we already have one, this, among many things, will mean unnecessary animal testing. Many constituents have written to me about this issue. If more constituents knew about it, they would not be happy. I hope that this can be changed and rectified before the next stage of reporting in May.

In summary, the Bill has a long way to go before it is fit for purpose. I hope that today Conservative Members finally listen, give this Bill the force and ambition that our environment desperately needs, and vote for the Opposition amendments.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]]

Like the previous Members of my party who have spoken, I shall be supporting the Opposition amendments. However, I would like to use my time to focus entirely on air pollution—a subject that is close not just to my heart, but to so many people I meet every day. It is also vital to our future and to our health, both individually and as communities.

In my constituency of Edinburgh West, we have two of the most polluted roads in Scotland, and one in every 29 deaths in our city of Edinburgh has been attributed to air pollution. Surely that is beyond unacceptable. I also have personal family reasons for knowing what a silent and merciless killer air pollution can be. Lives are blighted or even lost, and our NHS is put under yet more strain. Clean air is one of the most precious commodities that we have, and it is becoming even more precious.

For me, there is nothing that we could do that would be too much, but tinkering around the edges, as this Bill will do, is not good enough. We need to be brave and, yes, we need to start spending money. Our children are now making it abundantly clear that they do not believe that previous generations have done enough to ensure that the planet is safe for them, and they are the ones who tend to be exposed to higher levels of pollution than adults. We need to listen and act now. The Liberal Democrats’ zero carbon target is 2045; we believe that 2050 is simply too late. We need to strengthen our interim targets and undertake a 10-year emergency emission reduction programme to cut emissions as much as possible by 2030.

This legislation is a good start, but it does not have the teeth necessary to provide the robust protection for the environment that we need. If it is not to become little more than a series of meaningless platitudes, the Office for Environmental Protection and local authorities must have sufficient funding and empowerment to be effective. We need an Act modelled on the Climate Change Act 2008, with regular interim targets to cut not just air pollution but plastic pollution, and to restore nature. For me, the clean air provisions are simply not good enough. We need new legal limits that meet World Health Organisation limits, a new duty on public bodies to do their part in tackling pollution, and a new right to clean air in domestic law. All that is meaningless, however, if the reports are correct and the Bill is delayed until the next Session. More time will be lost, more people will breathe in dangerously polluted air, more damage will be done to our lives, our environment and the planet, and the chances of turning this ecological disaster around will be lost. I hope that the House will support the Opposition amendment.