Government drags its heels on Heathrow expansion despite strong calls to withdraw project

On 24 May, there was a debate on the Future of Heathrow Expansion. You can read the transcript of it here. Fleur Anderson, the MP for Putney, secured the debate there were many passionate speeches from a range of politicians, including Fleur Anderson (Putney, Labour), John McDonnell (Hayes & Harlington, Labour), Munira Wilson (Twickenham, Lib Dem), Ruth Cadbury (Brentford & Isleworth, Labour), Grahame Morris (Easington, Labour), Christine Jardine (Edinburgh South West, Lib Dem), Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith, Labour) and Marsha de Cordova (Battersea, Labour) (2).

The speeches highlighted the fact Heathrow could, based on the Department for Transport’s own figures, actually bring a net negative impact to the UK economy once ‘disbenefits’ such as pollution are monetised.. The huge detriment to local air quality, massive increases in carbon emissions, noise pollution and the associated negative health impacts were discussed, and members demanded the government withdraw their support for Heathrow for these perfectly sound reasons.

The Government were also questioned on who is going to pay for all the additional costs associated with expansion beyond the actual runway itself. Would the bill for road and rail upgrades, which could include tunnelling of the M25 be footed by taxpayers? Heathrow have only previously committed to contributing £1billion towards these costs, which are estimated from £5 - £15billion. The Government have said there would be no taxpayer funding and that Heathrow expansion was a private sector project, but more clarity is sought on what exactly this means.

We were disappointed with the Government’s response.

The Government could have taken this opportunity to announce that it was going to review the very outdated Airports National Policy Statement on Heathrow Expansion, which is based on evidence now a decade old.

They could’ve chosen to explain exactly what it means when it says that Heathrow will receive ‘no taxpayer funding’ to construct a third runway – does this mean just the runway itself or all the required road and rail upgrades?

They could’ve announced that due to our requirement to meet Net Zero emissions by 2050 that they are abandoning plans for a third runway and are instead going to focus on encouraging Heathrow to become a better, not bigger airport.

But they didn’t. Instead, minister Jesse Norman gave us a timeline of the Heathrow debate so far, which most already know, and repeated old commitments to reduce emissions at airports (but note – their Zero Emissions Airports Strategy does not include emissions from planes themselves, just those from the terminal buildings!).

The Government must do better in future and reverse outdated plans to expand Heathrow.

After the debate. there was a photo op with MPs.