It is no surprise to see a government that claims to be committed to making economic growth a priority giving the green light to expansion of Gatwick Airport and Luton Airport.
Nor, for that matter, would it be a surprise for a third runway at Heathrow Airport to be given the go-ahead by Sir Keir Starmer‘s government – particularly as Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, told the London Evening Standard in July last year that she had “nothing against expanding airport capacity… I want Heathrow to be that European hub for travel”.
Put in purely economic terms, airport expansion is a no-brainer.
The independent commission led by Sir Howard Davies, the former chairman of NatWest, and published as long ago as July 2015, concluded that “expanded airport capacity is crucial for the UK’s long-term prosperity”.
Gatwick, according to a report prepared for the airport by the independent economic consultancy Oxera, generated £5.5bn for the economy in 2023 and supported more than 76,000 jobs.
More on Heathrow Airport
Related Topics:
The airport’s owner estimates that expanding it to take annual capacity to 75 million by the mid-2030s, up from the £46.5m it hit in 2019, would create around 14,000 jobs and generate an extra £1bn a year in economic benefits.
Those numbers are difficult to verify – but it can be stated with confidence that anything which provides access to new markets for both consumers and businesses will be positive for growth.
Expanding the smaller Luton Airport would, similarly, be positive for growth.
Image: A plane flies past a ‘Stop Heathrow Expansion’ sign in west London. Pic: PA
The airport in 2019 – these pre-pandemic numbers are probably the most reliable given the upheaval of the last few years – is estimated to have supported 16,500 jobs in the local area and contributed £1.1bn to GDP. Expansion on the airport’s estimates creates up to 6,100 jobs and contributes an extra £900m to GDP.
Trumping them both, of course, is Heathrow.
The Davies Commission said that building a third runway to the northwest of the airport would provide for around 40 new destinations from Heathrow and would create more than 70,000 new jobs by 2050, adding some £147bn to GDP.
It stated: “Heathrow is best-placed to provide the type of capacity which is most urgently required: long-haul destinations to new markets. It provides the greatest benefits for business passengers, freight operators and the broader economy.”
It is worth noting that among the members of the commission was Sir John Armitt, the respected former chairman of the Olympic Delivery Authority, who is now chair of the National Infrastructure Commission.
His term of office was extended by Ms Reeves in October last year in order for him to oversee the 10-year strategy ordered by the chancellor and the establishment of the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority.
He will be an influential voice in this debate.
However, while the economic case for airport expansion is unimpeachable, the bigger question, perhaps, is whether it is achievable.
Political considerations
Getting approval for the expansion of both Luton and Gatwick will be a major test of the new government’s commitment to overhauling planning regulations where they are an impediment to growth.
And here there are – for supporters of expansion – ominous signs.
A decision on whether or not to expand Luton was postponed for the third time just before Christmas so that Heidi Alexander, who had just succeeded the disgraced Louise Haigh as transport secretary, could be given time to assess the application.
Climate concerns
Tied into the planning hurdles are the inevitable environmental objections.
The Climate Change Committee, the government’s independent advisory body, has already said emissions savings would have to be made elsewhere in the economy were there to be a big expansion in airport passenger numbers.
The aviation industry will doubtless argue that it has already committed to becoming net zero by the middle of the century – but the environmental lobby has a long track record of successfully campaigning against airport expansion.
On top of that are the political obstacles.
Ms Reeves – and Ms Alexander, should she back expansion of Gatwick and Luton – will face implacable opposition from within their own cabinet, not least from Ed Miliband, the energy and climate change secretary.
Backing Heathrow expansion would be more controversial still.
Sadiq Khan, the London mayor, is strongly opposed to this and so are other senior Labour figures, among them Andy Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester.
He argues that a third runway at Heathrow would run counter to levelling-up proposals – although it is worth noting here that some of the UK’s biggest regional airports, such as Newcastle, support a third runway on the basis that it would boost international connectivity to their region.
That means leadership will ultimately have to come from Sir Keir Starmer who, it is worth noting, voted against a third runway at Heathrow in 2018.
Government unlikely to ever get credit
Supporting airport expansion is often difficult for governments – quite apart from the environmental objections and the inevitable planning hurdles – because it takes so long to add capacity and ministers are therefore unlikely to receive credit for it during their political lifetime.
For example, the two main airport expansion projects currently under way in Europe, the new Luis de Camoes airport in Lisbon and the new Solidarity superhub in Warsaw, are unlikely to be completed until the mid-2030s.
But the latter, in particular, highlights how other European governments have no hesitation in seeing airport expansion as a major generator of growth.
It is not alone. Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport, an increasingly important competitor to Heathrow, is currently investing some €6bn in upgrades with the aim of expanding both passenger and flight numbers. Budapest, an airport once owned by BAA, the former parent of Heathrow and Gatwick, is looking to build a third terminal that would generate an extra three million passengers by the end of the decade.
These examples highlight how other European governments are less squeamish about putting airport expansion over environmental considerations in the name of pursuing economic growth.
You can be sure that the international investors who own Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton will be looking to the UK to do likewise.
At least 13 people may have taken their own lives after being accused of wrongdoing based on evidence from the Horizon IT system that the Post Office and developers Fujitsu knew could be false, the public inquiry has found.
A further 59 people told the inquiry they considered ending their lives, 10 of whom tried on at least one occasion, while other postmasters and family members recount suffering from alcoholism and mental health disorders including anorexia and depression, family breakup, divorce, bankruptcy and personal abuse.
Writing in the first volume of the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry report, chairman Sir Wyn Williams concludes that this enormous personal toll came despite senior employees at the Post Office knowing the Horizon IT system could produce accounts “which were illusory rather than real” even before it was rolled out to branches.
Sir Wyn said: “I am satisfied from the evidence that I have heard that a number of senior, and not so senior, employees of the Post Office knew or, at the very least, should have known that Legacy Horizon was capable of error… Yet, for all practical purposes, throughout the lifetime of Legacy Horizon, the Post Office maintained the fiction that its data was always accurate.”
Referring to the updated version of Horizon, known as Horizon Online, which also had “bugs errors and defects” that could create illusory accounts, he said: “I am satisfied that a number of employees of Fujitsu and the Post Office knew that this was so.”
The first volume of the report focuses on what Sir Wyn calls the “disastrous” impact of false accusations made against at least 1,000 postmasters, and the various redress schemes the Post Office and government has established since miscarriages of justice were identified and proven.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:28
‘It stole a lot from me’
Recommendations regarding the conduct of senior management of the Post Office, Fujitsu and ministers will come in a subsequent report, but Sir Wyn is clear that unjust and flawed prosecutions were knowingly pursued.
“All of these people are properly to be regarded as victims of wholly unacceptable behaviour perpetrated by a number of individuals employed by and/or associated with the Post Office and Fujitsu from time to time and by the Post Office and Fujitsu as institutions,” he says.
What are the inquiry’s recommendations?
Calling for urgent action from government and the Post Office to ensure “full and fair compensation”, he makes 19 recommendations including:
• Government and the Post Office to agree a definition of “full and fair” compensation to be used when agreeing payouts • Ending “unnecessarily adversarial attitude” to initial offers that have depressed the value of payouts, and ensuring consistency across all four compensation schemes • The creation of a standing body to administer financial redress to people wronged by public bodies • Compensation to be extended to close family members of those affected who have suffered “serious negative consequences” • The Post Office, Fujitsu and government agreeing a programme for “restorative justice”, a process that brings together those that have suffered harm with those that have caused it
Regarding the human impact of the Post Office’s pursuit of postmasters, including its use of unique powers of prosecution, Sir Wyn writes: “I do not think it is easy to exaggerate the trauma which persons are likely to suffer when they are the subject of criminal investigation, prosecution, conviction and sentence.”
He says that even the process of being interviewed under caution by Post Office investigators “will have been troubling at best and harrowing at worst”.
The report finds that those wrongfully convicted were “subject to hostile and abusive behaviour” in their local communities, felt shame and embarrassment, with some feeling forced to move.
Detailing the impact on close family members of those prosecuted, Sir Wyn writes: “Wives, husbands, children and parents endured very significant suffering in the form of distress, worry and disruption to home life, in employment and education.
“In a number of cases, relationships with spouses broke down and ended in divorce or separation.
“In the most egregious cases, family members themselves suffered psychiatric illnesses or psychological problems and very significant financial losses… their suffering has been acute.”
The report includes 17 case studies of those affected by the scandal including some who have never spoken publicly before. They include Millie Castleton, daughter of Lee Castleton, one of the first postmasters prosecuted.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:34
Three things you need to know about Post Office report
She told the inquiry how her family being “branded thieves and liars” affected her mental health, and contributed to a diagnosis of anorexia that forced her to drop out of university.
Her account concludes: “Even now as I go into my career, I still find it so incredibly hard to trust anyone, even subconsciously. I sabotage myself by not asking for help with anything.
“I’m trying hard to break this cycle but I’m 26 and am very conscious that I may never be able to fully commit to natural trust. But my family is still fighting. I’m still fighting, as are many hundreds involved in the Post Office trial.”
Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds said the inquiry’s report “marks an important milestone for sub-postmasters and their families”.
He added that he was “committed to ensuring wronged sub-postmasters are given full, fair, and prompt redress”.
“The recommendations contained in Sir Wyn’s report require careful reflection, including on further action to complete the redress schemes,” Mr Reynolds said.
“Government will promptly respond to the recommendations in full in parliament.”
The UK’s public finances are in a “relatively vulnerable position”, the government’s official forecaster has warned.
The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) cited a drag from successive economic shocks, recent U-turns on spending cuts and higher-than-expected policy commitments.
It sounded alarm over the projected path for debt as a result, in its annual fiscal risks and sustainability report.
It saw total debt above 270% of gross domestic product (GDP) by the early 2070s – up from a current level of 96.5% – declaring that rising debts have led to “a substantial erosion of the UK’s capacity to respond to future shocks”.
The OBR’s report highlighted damage from the COVID pandemic and cost of living crisis that followed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
But it raised fears that past and current government policies were further harming the sustainability of the public finances.
More from Money
The report said that the pension triple lock, for example, was now estimated to cost £15.5bn annually by 2029-30.
That was “around three times higher than initial expectations”, it said.
The lock, which rises each year in line with inflation, wage growth or 2.5% – whichever is higher – had risen by more than the 2.5% base in eight of the 13 years of operation to date, the report stated.
The watchdog said it reflected more volatile inflation than expected.
It also picked up on the latest government U-turns over planned welfare and winter fuel payment cuts in the face of rebellions by Labour MPs.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
9:11
Welfare U-turn ‘has come at cost’
The decisions are expected to leave Chancellor Rachel Reeves facing a black hole of £6.75bn while weaker-than-expected economic growth could add a further £9bn to that sum in the run-up to the autumn budget, according to Sky News projections that see a void of around £20bn.
The OBR highlighted future risks from rising defence spending and the impact of climate change.
Public sector pay demands could also prove a drag, with resident doctors voting in favour of strikes over pay.
While ministers acknowledge damage to the public purse from the U-turns, Ms Reeves has repeatedly ruled out a new wave of borrowing to fund a spending spree.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:56
Could the rich be taxed to fill black hole?
As such, the government has not ruled out the prospect of some form of wealth tax to help meet its commitments despite the top 1% of earners contributing almost a third of all income tax already – on top of other targeted taxes such as capital gains.
The report said: “Efforts to put the UK’s public finances on a more sustainable footing have met with only limited and temporary success in recent years in the aftermath of the shocks, debt has also continued to rise and borrowing remained elevated because governments have reversed plans to consolidate the public finances.
“Planned tax rises have been reversed, and, more significantly, planned spending reductions have been abandoned.”
Shadow chancellor Mel Stride said of the report: “The OBR’s report lays bare the damage: Britain now has the third-highest deficit and the fourth-highest debt burden in Europe, with borrowing costs among the highest in the developed world.
“Under Rachel Reeves’ economic mismanagement and Keir Starmer’s weak leadership, our public finances have become dangerously exposed – vulnerable to future shocks, welfare spending rising unsustainably, taxes rising to record highs and crippling levels of debt interest.
“Labour’s recklessness risks it all – your pension, your job, your home, your savings.”
A Number 10 spokesman said: “We recognise the realities set out in the OBR’s report and we’re taking the decisions needed to provide stability to the public finances.”
The UK will miss the White House-imposed deadline to agree a trade deal on steel and aluminium this week, according to insiders from government and industry.
Donald Trump had insisted that unless Britain could finalise the details of its metals trade deal with the US by 9 July, he would raise the tariffs faced by steel and aluminium imports from the 25% the UK currently pays to the 50% paid by other countries. If it could seal the deal, those tariffs could drop to zero.
However, despite weeks of negotiations and promises that the deal would be completed by the end of June, talks have foundered on two key issues. First, the US is insisting that only steel “melted and poured” in the UK (in other words, forged in blast furnaces or electric arc furnaces) can be included in the deal. However, one of Britain’s biggest steel exporters to the US, Tata Steel, is not melting and pouring its UK steel because of the closure of its blast furnaces.
Government insiders have told businesses they still expect to have a deal done by the end of this month, and that they are confident the White House will not impose the 50% tariffs for the time being. They say one of the chief challenges they face is that the administration is so overwhelmed by attempts to negotiate with other countries that they lack the bandwidth to deal with the small print on Britain’s deal.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:31
Inside the UK’s last blast furnaces
“As far as the Americans are concerned, the UK is already a done deal,” said one person close to the negotiations. The problem is that while a deal has been done on car and aerospace exports to the US, the metals element of the trade agreement is still some way from being signed. In the meantime, steel exports continue to incur tariffs – albeit lower than those imposed on other countries around the world.