Heathrow Airport Expansion

Richard Holden Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. Just after the second world war, in May ’46, the first commercial flights departed Heathrow, marking the beginning of an 80-year journey that has seen over 3 billion passengers move through the airport and take 22 million flights. Between September last year and August this year, 84 million passengers went through Heathrow. The Prime Minister likes to talk about the industrialisation of the past century. Heathrow and our other airports across the country are symbols of the modern industrialised world, where transportation between countries is a major engine of economic development.

That leads us to the subject of today’s debate, Heathrow expansion. A long-running and undeniably contentious issue is at stake here. I do not think anyone could be surprised to see the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) make the case against expansion. Her predecessors as MPs did the same, all the way back to Hugh Jenkins, who in 1970 asked the Government to give an undertaking

“that no further enlargement of Heathrow Airport will be permitted and that no additional runways of any kind will be allowed.”—[Official Report, 4 November 1970; Vol. 805, c. 366W.]

However, the figure of 84 million passengers makes it clear that Heathrow is at capacity. The lack of further capacity is severely constraining its ability to grow and, as a consequence, Britain’s ability to grow through its hub airport. Data published in March by Airports Council International showed that the growth in passenger numbers at Heathrow of 1.9% falls well behind the European average of 4.6%. If we want businesses in this country to grow and to encourage private investment, we should not stand in the way of development that offers economic benefits. If we do, the demand for flights will not dissipate. Rather, operators will choose to fly and invest elsewhere—particularly given that Heathrow is a hub airport—and most likely at competing European airports that have expanded their facilities, such as Schiphol, Charles de Gaulle and Frankfurt. In many cases, they will also build new runways. Alongside that will be the jobs and the other opportunities that go with it.

[Sarah Olney]

Would the right hon. Gentleman like to say more about those economic benefits, given that the Treasury’s figures show that the likely economic impact of Heathrow expansion is between minus £25 billion and minus £63 billion over 60 years?

[Mr Holden]

I will come on to those figures because I think we can all agree that there is questioning of them. It surprises me that the former Chancellor of Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves), and the current Chancellor of Exchequer are so vociferously supportive of the airport expansion if those figures are true.

[Jim Shannon]

In my contribution, I intimated that there is uncertainty about the growth of Belfast City airport: it has its plans to grow, but the growth of Heathrow will be part of how Belfast City airport will grow—the two of them can grow together. Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that when it comes to regional connectivity, the opportunity for us to grow in Belfast, in Northern Ireland, depends greatly on how Heathrow grows?

[Mr Holden]

The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point. I remember, as a Transport Minister, visiting Belfast City airport, Belfast International airport and City of Derry airport. They are so important, and they reinforced to me how important that plug-in from Heathrow, as our international hub, is for not just Northern Ireland but Scotland, Wales and the north of England. None of our other airports have that hub status. That is why Heathrow is under different regulations and a different model. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about how that connectivity drives growth right across the UK.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Mr Holden]

No; I have just given way twice, and I will happily give way again later. Since the announcement was made, the Conservative party’s leadership has been clear: expansion should go ahead provided that sensible and proportionate local mitigation measures form part of that plan. Heathrow and the Government have already set out a number of those measures. However, it is critical that they genuinely serve the interests of local residents and do not impose excessive costs that will ultimately be passed on to passengers.

I turn to the challenges posed for the Minister in the debate. The former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Leeds West and Pudsey, as well as the former Prime Minister and the current Chancellor have all backed the project. The Minister is now in the unenviable position of trying to explain whether the Government of which he is a member actually support expansion or not. The situation has become a political version of Schrödinger’s cat. The Prime Minister seems to believe that by refusing to give a clear answer and by deflecting attention towards the concerns about other projects, he can leave some people believing that the runway idea is alive and some believing it is dead, all at the same time.

The other day, the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the International Monetary Fund:

“The case for a third runway at Heathrow has always been a case for growth”.

This created a completely different impression of the Government’s position. Unfortunately, that good cop, bad cop approach to expansion does little to reassure investors—not just investors in Heathrow, but investors in the UK in general. As Heathrow made clear in evidence to the Transport Committee, investors want clarity about the regulatory framework so that they can assess the project’s business case with confidence.

Although there has been much speculation about the timetable for expansion, the lack of clarity over the Government’s position and regulatory framework risks undermining confidence further. If the Prime Minister does not appear to give the project his support, how on earth can investors have confidence in the regulatory process, which is ultimately overseen by the Government he leads?

I am afraid that the discrepancy between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor gets to the heart of the challenges facing the Government. By giving the public the impression that they are jettisoning the previous Government’s commitment, the Prime Minister is once again demonstrating what has become his trademark skill: evading responsibility and avoiding difficult decisions.

[Danny Beales]

The right hon. Gentleman has presented the clarity in the Opposition’s position, but my understanding is that the Conservative party is quite divided on this matter. The local Conservative-led council in Hillingdon opposes it, as do many MPs. The position that he put forward had quite a big “if” caveat: they would support it “if” there were no costs and additional measures. Those measures are not clear. As many have said, the costs are not being covered. The taxpayer would have to foot the bill for significant transport improvements and mitigation measures, which are not being funded. What price are the Opposition willing to have taxpayers pay for Heathrow to go ahead?

[Mr Holden]

Whenever there is a large infrastructure project in the country—we are fully aware of this and always have been—there will always be local objections, as we would expect at council and sometimes constituency MP level. I think everybody understands that. The broader point is that Heathrow will be a privately funded project, and we support it on that basis.

What is the cost of the failure to make a decision? It is lost growth and forgone private sector investment. This is the same behaviour that we have seen towards vital projects such as more drilling in the North sea. The Prime Minister wants to talk about re-industrialisation without giving British companies or businesses the tools they need to achieve that. As the Leader of the Opposition stated:

“The future of our country’s busiest airport is not a regional matter”

That is why I take issue with some of the speeches made by Members today. This is a matter for the country and for the Prime Minister, so, in the words of the Leader of the Opposition, he needs to “stop faffing about” and “get this runway built.”

There has been much discussion today about the level of economic growth that the airport would deliver, to pick up on the intervention made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park. However, we should all be able to agree that the project would bring economic benefits. The £17 billion in benefits estimated by Heathrow is a considerable sum. Although I understand that the Department has produced different figures, I ask the Minister what steps the Department is taking to ensure that its economic analysis captures the full benefits for passengers and trade in full and, indeed, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, right across the United Kingdom as well.

Furthermore, the project will increase investment in UK supply chains, create jobs and provide opportunities for new apprenticeships. The chief executive officer of Heathrow said only last week that of the billions in private sector investment, 95% will go into the UK supply chains, alongside more than 100,000 jobs that Heathrow says the project could support.

[Dr Arthur]

The right hon. Gentleman cites the CEO of Heathrow airport, but he will be aware that none of the airlines back his plan to expand the airport. Can he explain that, and what do he and the CEO know about this plan that the airlines do not?

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

The hon. Gentleman should familiarise himself with “Erskine May”, page 488, which makes it clear that when you have not been present for the bulk of the debate, it is not polite to intervene. The right hon. Gentleman who has the floor now needs to bring his remarks to a conclusion to give maximum time to the Minister.

[Mr Holden]

Thank you very much, Sir John. I will just say that there are clearly vested interests on all sides. If the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West does not think that existing airlines with existing slots have vested interests, he is living on a different planet. With the most recent economic figures showing a contraction in construction output, how on earth can we justify failing to provide clarity about such a significant infrastructure project?

From the outset, it has felt that the Department for Transport was trying to catch up with announcements made by the Treasury and Prime Minister. Now it appears that progress might be stalled by No. 10 instead. I am afraid that the non-answers we have seen from the Government to date demonstrate a lack of seriousness on their part. I hope that the Minister can encourage his more senior colleagues to provide some of that certainty, and maybe he can provide even more today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

Once again, I am sure the Aviation Minister will have heard my hon. Friend, and I will go on to address some of those issues.

The draft HENPS introduces a new test requiring potential promoters for development consent to demonstrate, through a clear, evidence-based growth strategy, how their scheme will support economic activity and growth at national, regional and local levels.

I will move on to climate change. The draft HENPS contains a clear climate change requirement whereby any increase in carbon emissions resulting from a proposed scheme must not be so significant that it would have a material impact on the UK’s legally binding carbon budgets. For expansion to proceed, it would need to align with the Government’s climate goals, including our legal commitment to reach net zero by 2050. Any increase in carbon emissions associated with Heathrow expansion would need to be considered against the Government’s carbon reduction targets and the mitigation requirements set out in the draft HENPS.

On air quality, the draft HENPS is also clear that a scheme for Heathrow expansion must demonstrate that it will not result in any new breaches of legal obligations on air quality or make existing breaches materially worse. As part of that, the draft HENPS sets out mitigations that a potential promoter should consider to minimise the impact of the project on the environment and affected communities.

Finally, the draft HENPS sets out a noise test requiring overall aircraft noise to be limited and, where reasonably possible, reduced in comparison with 2024, taking into account quieter aircraft and operating procedures while providing adequate and predictable respite for communities. The mitigations should include a runway alternation scheme and a scheduled night flight ban. The draft HENPS currently requires an applicant to propose a scheduled night flight ban of six and a half hours, between the hours of 11 pm and 7 am, as part of their proposed mitigations of the noise impacts. Expansion would increase capacity, which may provide greater operational flexibility and allow aircraft to land more efficiently, potentially reducing reliance on extended holding patterns. That could benefit people living in the areas currently affected by noise from aircraft in holding patterns before landing.

Through the consultation, we are listening carefully to views across all four tests. However, I want to make it clear that we recognise that noise and air quality are particularly important to many local residents, and we are committed to ensuring that those concerns are fully considered as part of the process.

The draft HENPS also makes it clear that Heathrow expansion must be supported by a credible surface access strategy that enables more journeys to be made on public transport and reduces pressure on the wider transport network. The draft HENPS defines clear passenger public transport mode share targets. However, the onus will be on any potential promoter to demonstrate through the development consent order process that their proposed approach can credibly achieve those targets. Heathrow expansion is a private sector project, and the Government have been consistently clear that it must be privately financed.

[Mr Holden]

On the DCO process for surface access targets, could the Minister address the point about drop-off charges? That is important for the surface access proposals being put forward by the Government.

[Simon Lightwood]

I am sure the Aviation Minister will have more to say on that. There has been much in the media about the Government looking at this area, and I am sure the Aviation Minister will continue to engage with hon. Members on airport drop-offs.

On affordability, Heathrow expansion is a private sector project, as I have said, and the Government have been consistently clear that it must be privately financed. That includes the surface access improvements necessary for the expanded airport. The Civil Aviation Authority is continuing to develop the future regulatory framework for expansion, including by considering how costs are assessed, managed and, where appropriate, recovered. The CAA’s primary duty is to protect the interests of consumers, and affordability will be important.

Hon. Members mentioned the consultation period. We believe that a consultation period of more than 10 weeks was proportionate for reviewing amendments to an existing national policy statement, rather than a brand-new statement. The consultation period was designed to take into account the summer holiday period. It was carried out in accordance with section 7 of the Planning Act 2008 and in line with the Cabinet Office consultation principles, which require consultations to last for a proportionate amount of time.

Hon. Members also mentioned the Climate Change Committee, which has identified one potential pathway and important conditions that it considers necessary. We are considering that advice alongside the wider evidence and will set out the Government’s conclusions in our formal response.

I thank all Members for attending today’s debate. As noted, the Government will give due regard to the recommendations of the Transport Committee, alongside the responses received during the consultation, before determining the next steps on Heathrow expansion. Without wishing to prejudge the process, any finalised HENPS will be subject to parliamentary consideration, including a debate and vote in this House, before it can have legal effect, giving hon. Members the opportunity to consider the proposal and exercise their right to vote either for or against it.