Labour says Heathrow runway does NOT meet the 4 vital tests – calls on all parties to have a free vote on the NPS
The Labour Party has announced that the Government’s final proposal for an Airports National Policy Statement (NPS), laid before Parliament earlier this month, fails to meet Labour’s Four Tests for Heathrow expansion. Their support for a 3rd Heathrow runway has always been conditional on 4 well-established tests being met. These are (1). That increased capacity will be delivered. (2) That we can meet our CO2 reduction commitments. (3) Minimise noise and local environmental impact. (4). Benefits of expansion felt across the regions of the UK, not just the South East and London. Labour’s analysis of the NPS finds that none of these tests have been met. Labour is therefore calling for a free vote for all parties on the issue (likely on 25th June). Andy McDonald MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Transport, said: “Heathrow expansion is incompatible with our environmental and climate change obligations and cannot be achieved without unacceptable impacts on local residents. The improved connectivity to the regions of the UK cannot be guaranteed and there are unanswered questions on the costs to the public purse and the deliverability of the project.” Some Labour MPs back the runway, as do unions like Unite, that are always in hope of any prospect of jobs.
.
Tweet
Labour: Four Tests on Heathrow expansion not met
20.6.2018
Labour Party press release
Today, Labour has announced that the Government’s final proposal for an Airports National Policy Statement, laid before Parliament earlier this month, fails to meet Labour’s Four Tests for Heathrow expansion.
Labour’s support for proposed Heathrow expansion has always been conditional on four well-established tests being met:
- That increased capacity will be delivered
- That we can meet our CO2 reduction commitments
- Minimise noise and local environmental impact
- Benefits of expansion felt across the regions of theU.K., not just the South East and London
Labour’s analysis of the National Policy Statement finds that none of these tests have been met.
As a result of the government’s proposed Heathrow expansion failing to deliver on the Four Tests, Labour opposes this expansion plan and is calling for a free vote for all parties on the National Policy Statement (New Runway Capacity and Infrastructure At Airports in the South of England) when it comes to Parliament next week.
Andy McDonald MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Transport, said:
“Labour has always argued that airport expansion must meet our four tests. After careful and rigorous consideration, we are clear that they have not been met.
“Heathrow expansion is incompatible with our environmental and climate change obligations and cannot be achieved without unacceptable impacts on local residents. The improved connectivity to the regions of the UK cannot be guaranteed and there are unanswered questions on the costs to the public purse and the deliverability of the project.
“We support vital investment in our country’s transport infrastructure, but every investment must be tested on whether it provides real value for money and sustainability. A third runway at Heathrow fails this test.”
Ends
NOTES TO EDITORS
Test 1: Is there robust and convincing evidence that the required increase in aviation capacity will be delivered?
Test Failed
The revised NPS does not provide sufficient guarantee that a third runway is in fact deliverable, which risks the entire economic benefit of the project.
Significant unanswered logistical questions remain, including problems associated with the M25 and the new rail scheme options and their funding, as well as the investments required to address concerns over local air pollution. The Government has acknowledged these issues in its revised NPS but has delegated responsibility for providing solutions to Heathrow itself, which it has so far failed to do so. Combined with the certainty of legal challenge through judicial review, these concerns amount to serious doubt as to whether this proposal will ever in fact deliver the required capacity.
Further, in 2015/16, a cost recovery clause was agreed with Heathrow in the Statement of Principles. Subparagraph 2.1.6 reserves Heathrow Airport Ltd.’s rights to pursue “legal and equitable remedies (including cost recovery)” in the event of “an alternative scheme being preferred by the Secretary of State or Government” and/or if Government withdraws its support “for aviation expansion for Heathrow Airport”. There appears to be no end date to this agreement. This means that taxpayers could be left picking up a multi-million pound bill, if the plan is approved and the Government does not proceed with developing the Heathrow North West runway scheme. The Government has tied itself into a considerable liability risk.
Test 2: Does the proposal support efforts to reduce CO2 emissions from aviation and is it consistent with meeting our legally binding climate change obligations?
Test Failed
The Department for Transport’s projections show that a new runway at Heathrow will directly lead to at least a 3.3MtCO2 breach of the 37.5MtCO2 limit for 2050 set by the Civil Aviation Authority without new policies to mitigate emissions.
The revised NPS simply restates the Airport Commission’s report which concluded that expansion could take place without breaching the CAA’s commitments. The Heathrow third runway option gave rise to the highest level of additional carbon emissions of all the options considered by the Airports Commission, but Parliament is now being asked to support this expansion without any new emissions mitigation framework, nor corresponding strategy or policies. Without these, the proposal is simply not consistent with the obligations set out in the 2008 Climate Change Act.
The absence of a reasonable plan to mitigate the extra emissions arising from a new runway means that the revised NPS would be in breach of section 5(8) of the Planning Act 2008, which would invite legal challenge and further exacerbate the risks set out in relation to the first test.
Test 3: Have local noise and environmental impacts been adequately considered and will they be managed and minimised?
Test Failed
The Government has not proposed clear targets for noise mitigation, nor has it taken sufficient action to ensure enough cleaner cars, the principal source of local air pollution, will be introduced in time to mitigate the risks of Heathrow enlargement, nor is there sufficient clarity or assurance on the airport’s alternative transport access means.
The Government’s own figures indicate that 92,000 more people will be affected by noise in 2030 than if the third runway at Heathrow is not built. 700 extra planes a day would use Heathrow. Some of the associated noise could be mitigated through more respite mechanisms, like using and rotating multiple flight paths, and with a tougher night-flight regime. The Transport Select Committee called on the Government to set clear noise targets, in order that such mechanisms had to be considered, but in the revised NPS the Government is not proposing any new targets.
The NPS merely states that “the Secretary of State will consider air quality impacts over the wider area likely to be affected, as well as in the vicinity of the scheme. In order to grant development consent, the Secretary of State will need to be satisfied that, with mitigation, the scheme would be compliant with legal obligations that provide for the protection of human health and the environment”. This provides no indication as to how the air pollution can be managed. Much of the risk of additional air pollution is largely outside of Heathrow’s control.Air pollution is an ongoing public health crisis that leads to approximately 50,000 premature deaths each year and has seen the government repeatedly taken to court over their failure to achieve legal levels of air quality. In the absence of a Government strategy to achieve legal levels of air quality across the country and lack of a plan for areas impacted by Heathrow expansion, we remain unconvinced that air quality impacts will be mitigated in the affected areas.
Test 4: Are the benefits of expansion to be shared in every corner of the country, not just in the South East of England, and will regional airports be supported too?
Test Not Yet Met
The revised NPS says that, if the third runway is built, up to 15% of all new routes will need to be reserved for the domestic market. The Government says that Public Service Obligations (PSO) will ensure compliance. Labour is concerned thatup to 15% could mean as little as 1%. In addition, PSOs apply to cities rather than airport specific locations. The Government’s stated case for expanding Heathrow is dependent on a number of other conditions being met, including measures to constrain growth at regional airports in order to ensure that Heathrow expansion can meet the UK’s climate change obligations. On the one hand, in the NPS the Secretary of State has relied on restricting other airports to claim that Heathrow’s expansion is compatible with our climate change obligations while on the other hand, in ‘Making the Best Use of Our Existing Runways’, he has asserted that airport capacity can be increased across the UK as a whole. The two outcomes are mutually incompatible.
In the absence of any mechanism to guarantee domestic slots, in addition to the potential restrictions on the use of regional airports that would be required to achieve the UK’s climate change obligations, Labour is not satisfied that Heathrow expansion is commensurate with expansion benefitting the whole of the UK.
https://labour.org.uk/category/latest/press-release/
.
.
Labour opposes Heathrow third runway over environmental, budget and local neighbourhood concerns
By Telegraph Reporters
20 JUNE 2018
Labour will oppose the Government’s plan for a third runway to be built at Heathrow after saying it fails to meet current environmental obligations and will have “unnaceptable impacts” on nearby residents.
Andy McDonald MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Transport, attacked the proposal saying there were also “unanswered questions” over the funding of the project, which is set to exceed £14bn.
The party said the Airports National Policy Statement, laid before Parliament earlier this month, fails to meet all of Labour’s four tests.
These include targets such as promising that increased capacity will be delivered, that CO2 reduction commitments are met, that the project will minimise the noise and local environmental impact and ensuring the benefits of expansion are felt across all regions of the UK.
However, when the statement comes to parliament on Monday, Labour will not whip its MPs as it has instead called for a free vote for all parties.
Mr McDonald said: “Labour has always argued that airport expansion must meet our four tests. After careful and rigorous consideration, we are clear that they have not been met.
“Heathrow expansion is incompatible with our environmental and climate change obligations and cannot be achieved without unacceptable impacts on local residents. The improved connectivity to the regions of the UK cannot be guaranteed and there are unanswered questions on the costs to the public purse and the deliverability of the project.
“We support vital investment in our country’s transport infrastructure, but every investment must be tested on whether it provides real value for money and sustainability. A third runway at Heathrow fails this test.”
Theresa May, the Prime Minister, is hopeful the plan will get the parliamentary green light, particularly as key critic Boris Johnson, the Foreign Secretary, is set to miss the vote.
John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, has also always been a fierce critic of the plan.
.
.
The Times says:
The decision comes days before MPs are finally due to have a vote on the national policy statement in parliament next Monday.
Research by Heathrow has suggested that up to 75% of all MPs support a third runway, including the SNP, the DUP and a sizeable number of Tory and Labour MPs. A free vote for Labour means that the third runway is almost certain to pass a parliamentary vote. However, the decision to drop the party’s formal support for the runway will be seen as a significant step with the potential to sway some MPs. The party has formally backed a third runway for at least 15 years.
.
.
.