Heathrow Airport Expansion

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Fleur Anderson]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The context of this debate has changed, which is my point; things have changed since 2015. We are looking again at devolution and growth across the country, and that changed context means that Heathrow expansion really needs to be looked at again, especially when the Mayor of London opposes it so strongly.

Fourthly, business travel has changed; the world that originally produced the case for the third runway no longer exists. Much of the demand modelling that was made then assumed ever-increasing business travel, but the pandemic accelerated a shift towards remote working and video conferencing, which has become permanent. Research highlighted by the New Economics Foundation shows that over the two decades before the pandemic, UK GDP grew by around 25% while business passenger numbers through UK airports showed virtually no growth at all. Today, business travel remains at a level that is about 20% below pre-pandemic levels, so the fundamental assumption about business travel no longer applies.

Fifthly, assumptions about sustainable aviation fuel have also changed. Sustainable aviation fuel was meant to be the great white charger that would come galloping over the hills, and that we would all be using it, and it would be the answer to all our climate problems. However, use of it is far less than predicted and is growing more slowly than predicted. It still accounts for far less than 1% of global aviation fuel use, and even under the Government’s own plans, around 90% of aviation fuel being used in 2030 would still be conventional fuel. In effect, Parliament is being asked to approve additional emissions now on the basis that future technology might solve the problem some time later, but that hope is really not being borne out.

Sixthly, the climate challenge has become far more acute. The Climate Change Committee’s conclusion in its report last month was clear—the UK does not currently have a credible pathway to reduce aviation emissions in line with net zero while accommodating Heathrow expansion. The Committee estimates that expansion would add an additional 2.4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide every year by 2050. That is roughly the equivalent of putting around half a million additional petrol-fuelled cars on Britain’s roads, all the emissions of Denmark, and greater than all the emissions of New Zealand.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

When I was first elected to Parliament nine years ago, we had people coming in and saying that new technology in aviation—electric planes, hydrogen planes and SAF—would significantly reduce emissions by 2025; I think that was the date given. None of that has happened. So all these assumptions are being made about new technology, which has not arrived and will not arrive. And we will break through our carbon budget just with increased aviation, particularly if we go ahead with a third runway at Heathrow. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Fleur Anderson]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend and I thank him for that intervention, which speaks for the views of so many people, who are saying similar things. Indeed, a long time ago they were saying, “Look at the assumptions”, but now we have even more facts about those assumptions. We know what has actually come to pass and it is not all that was promised. At a time when households, motorists and businesses are being asked to reduce emissions, and after the summer of extreme weather that we have just had, why would we seek permission to increase emissions by so much?

Seventhly, our understanding of the health impact of noise has changed. Noise is not just an inconvenience; it is not something for people to get used to. We now know the impact of noise on many health conditions, including heart conditions and mental health conditions. This new knowledge about the impact of noise and what that impact will be on so many millions more people really should give the Government pause for thought. At the very least, the Government should commit to a full seven-hour night-flight ban between 11 pm and 6 am, with a pathway towards an eight-hour ban in the future. That respite would be so important for my constituents.

Eighthly, our expectations on air quality have changed. London is now the world’s largest clean-air zone. Putney’s high street used to be one of the most polluted in the country, but is now just the same as other high streets. That has been through a lot of hard policy and hard work. The ultra low emission zone covers every London borough and has reduced harmful nitrogen dioxide concentrations in central London by more than 50%. There has been heavy investment around improving our air quality, but this pollution from Heathrow airport would take us in the other direction.

Those are eight things that have changed since 2015, and I am sure that the Minister has listened very carefully to them all, but there are three things that have not changed. First, there is no funding plan for the surface transport to go along with the airport. I have been asking this question of Treasury Ministers ever since the proposals came out: “Will the Government fund the ground transport?” No. I have been asking Heathrow, “Will Heathrow fund the ground transport?” No, it will not. We have a massive gap here given the number of people who will travel to Heathrow airport. What will they travel on? I think that that will be a real millstone around the Government’s neck in future.

The second thing that has not changed is that Heathrow is the wrong location for a hub airport of this scale, for areas such as Northern Ireland—I know that we have a Member from Northern Ireland here—Liverpool, Manchester or Scotland. If anyone looked at the UK to decide where to put a hub airport, would they really put it next to one of the most densely populated parts of the whole country, or would they put it in the middle of the country? Would they locate it at an airport that already had two runways, such as Manchester’s?

The third thing that has not changed is that we do not have a national aviation strategy. Why are these decisions being made piecemeal? We have Gatwick, Luton and now Heathrow; where is the overall strategy for this? What is the decision-making behind it? Why do we not step back, look at what kind of aviation growth we want and need and where we want that to be, and then put this decision within that?

When the Airports Commission recommended Heathrow’s expansion in 2015, it asked the public and Parliament to accept a trade-off: to accept the noise, the environmental impacts and the disruption, because the rewards would be worth it. We were promised transformational economic growth across the United Kingdom, but, more than a decade later, we find a very different situation. Those foundations and assumptions are very weak. The projected economic gains are smaller than promised.

[Alex Sobel]

One concerning point that my hon. Friend did not raise is the number of houses that will be demolished and the number of people who will be displaced. Heathrow’s own assumption is fewer than 1,000, but that is really only the direct curtilage of the runway. Even a quite casual look at a map would show that the uninhabitable zone around Heathrow could be north of 5,000 homes.

Who would pay for those demolitions, and for the replacements and compensation for those homeowners? That is something, alongside ground transport, that nobody is willing to pay for. That is an exceedingly large amount of money, on top of the misery caused for all those people living there.

[Fleur Anderson]

I absolutely have all those communities in my mind. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I am sure that we will hear more about that from other Members in this Chamber today who represent those communities that will be so directly affected.

That is what I mean about the national strategy; that would be a very big factor. How many communities will be affected? What is the trade-off here? Why—again—would anyone choose to put this hub airport next to London? It affects more people than all the other major hub airports across Europe. Five hub airports there have fewer people affected than this one, because it is so close to London. It is not in the place we would put it if we started from scratch.

As I was saying, Parliament was asked to accept a trade-off between the negative effects and the economic gains, but that whole equation has now crumbled. This is no longer the proposition that Parliament was presented with in 2015; it asks communities to accept many more dangers and harms, but for less-certain benefits.

Every day, my constituents live with the consequences of Heathrow. Asking them to accept more flights, more noise and more disruption requires a compelling national case, and we just do not have it here. If the growth is smaller, the jobs are less certain and the benefits are less widely shared than promised, the responsible thing to do is not to simply press ahead regardless; it is to stop and look again. I therefore hope that, when the time for a conclusion comes, the Minister will conclude that a third runway at Heathrow is not right for the country.