Government 'watering down' pollution limits to meet Heathrow pledge

The government is set to “water down” limits on aviation emissions and is shifting targets to meet its pledge to mitigate the environmental impact of expanding Heathrow, MPs have said.

The cross-party environmental audit committee said ministers were not doing enough to demonstrate a third Heathrow runway could be built without breaching laws on air quality and carbon emissions.

Its report said the government had persistently failed to define which obligations it would be meeting on climate change, or whether it would keep to EU limits on air quality after Brexit, while assurances on noise respite also fell short on specifics.

Mary Creagh, Labour MP for Wakefield and the committee chair, said: “If the government wants to get Heathrow expansion off the ground it needs to show that a third runway can be built and run without exceeding legal limits on air pollution or breaching our carbon budgets.

“Worryingly, the government looks set to water down the limits on aviation emissions recommended by its own climate change advisers. That would mean other sectors of the economy, like energy and industry, having to cut their carbon emissions even deeper and faster,” Creagh said.

“Mitigating the air quality, carbon and noise impacts of a new runway cannot be an afterthought. Ministers must work harder to show that Heathrow expansion can be done within the UK’s legally binding environmental commitments.”

The committee said it was concerned that the government had given no guarantees that air quality targets would be maintained after the UK leaves the EU, and said a new air quality strategy was urgently required.

While conditions for expansion have included a promise not to increase road traffic at Heathrow, MPs said it would need to be rigorously monitored, with clear accountability and consequences for failure. The MPs said the government was relying on people switching to cleaner cars to reduce air pollution but had no confidence its targets would be met.

Meanwhile, the MPs said figures used by ministers were based on a “hypothetical international framework to reduce emissions” that does not yet exist but which would still leave the UK having to deal with higher levels of carbon emissions from aviation than it had budgeted for in meeting its agreed CO₂ targets.

A proposed night flight ban had not been nailed down, and there was little evidence that predictable respite could be achieved, MPs said, adding that it feared the government was watering down the powers it would give to a new body overseeing noise pollution from the airport.

John Stewart, tchair of the Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise (Hacan), a campaign group that opposes Heathrow expansion, said: “The committee is saying in no uncertain terms that both the government and Heathrow airport have got to up their game big time if they are to have any chance of getting a third runway. They have got to prove they can deliver on noise, climate and air pollution, not just say they can.”

The Greenpeace UK executive director, John Sauven, said: “There’s a litany of questions about the environmental impacts of a third runway that the government has been fudging. MPs are absolutely right to demand clear answers. Ministers have produced no evidence that Heathrow expansion is compatible with bringing down illegal levels of air pollution or meeting our climate targets.”

The Department for Transport has yet to comment.

The report was published in the first week of public events in the government’s four-month consultation on the planned third runway at Heathrow. MPs will vote on the plan in the winter.

Local councils have accused the government of misleading the public in leaflets issued to thousands of households. They warn that the “rushed and imbalanced” consultation does not provide them with information on the negative effects of Heathrow expansion – particularly as flight paths that will affect particular communities have yet to be agreed.

Richmond, Hillingdon, Wandsworth and Windsor and Maidenhead councils have sent information leaflets highlighting the expected impact on pollution, health, traffic and noise, as well as costs to taxpayers. The councils say an extra 108 schools would become severely impacted by aircraft noise and that there would an additional 25m road journeys to the airport.

The Commons transport select committee announced on Wednesday that it would hold an inquiry into the national policy statement on airports, the policy paper that sets out the government’s plans to back the third runway, with MPs examining the suitability of the evidence and rationale for the decision, and the effectiveness of the public consultation.

A Department for Transport spokesman said:“We take our air quality commitments extremely seriously and have been very clear that the new runway will not get the go-ahead unless air quality requirements can be met.

“Our draft airports national policy statement sets out a world-class package of compensation and mitigation measures to support local communities and limit the environmental impact of airport expansion. We are currently carrying out a full consultation, and want to hear everyone’s views.”