Defence Secretary John Healey put forward an economic growth argument in favour of expanding Heathrow with a third runway, even as Prime Minister Andy Burnham withheld his support for the project. At an IMF gathering in Bangkok, Healey put forward the case that Britain's largest proposed airport development retained its viability and held the potential to draw in business investment and support economic growth.
Burnham has not yet declared a view on whether the development should go ahead, arguing that the choice belongs to Londoners themselves — a stance that puts him at odds with the position taken by his predecessor, Sir Keir Starmer, who had supported the scheme. During an address delivered in the Thai capital, Healey made clear that he backed the proposals.
Healey indicated that Labour intended to examine the responses gathered through a public consultation process that had recently drawn to a close, after being questioned on his position regarding the project. He noted that airports across the UK, Heathrow among them, had contributed to employment and economic expansion over the preceding decades.
Officially, the period for public input has now ended. The transport department is leading a review of those decisions and any further ones, with announcements to come, while Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander argued earlier in the week that expanding Heathrow could support economic growth and that the country risks falling behind by remaining static — remarks made after the airport's chief executive raised concerns about the lack of clarity surrounding the plans.
At the AirportsUK annual conference, Alexander informed business leaders that a final decision on the expansion plans remained outstanding for Labour, pending the outcome of a consultation. Alexander argued that remaining static puts Britain at a disadvantage, adding that a drive to strengthen the country's competitive position is shaping the government's thinking on Heathrow expansion.
Supporters of the third runway point to jobs, outside investment, and broader economic growth as potential gains for communities nationwide — though Burnham, despite two of his most senior cabinet members having indicated they back the plans, has yet to declare his own position, linking any stance he might take to what emerges from public consultation and the planning process.
A Downing Street spokesperson described economic growth as a clear priority and pointed to the additional runway capacity as something that could provide a meaningful uplift. The spokesperson went on to note that, as a privately funded infrastructure undertaking of this scale, the scheme is subject to a defined approval process that must be followed. The Prime Minister reviewing the details and hearing out the range of views put forward represents a reasonable part of the process, the spokesperson added.
Proposed outcomes will need to satisfy the benchmarks established for climate impact, noise levels, and air quality. No planning application for a third runway has been submitted at this point, while the £33 billion expansion scheme draws opposition from environmental campaigners, the Green Party, local residents, and London Mayor Sadiq Khan.
Zack Polanski, who leads the Green Party, told a broadcaster that approving a third runway at Heathrow would amount to a profound act of betrayal. Some who opposed the move argued it walked away from earlier environmental commitments, left residents breathing polluted air without adequate protection, and gave insufficient weight to the health of future generations.
Expanding airport infrastructure and increasing flight numbers, analysts and advocates argue, cannot on their own resolve the underlying pressures driving climate change, and policymakers face growing calls to move beyond stopgap compromises.
Heathrow chief executive Thomas Woldbye expressed a desire for the Prime Minister to back the third runway scheme, and asked for clarity on the government's position, adding that, without a firm commitment to the project, investment could flow to other countries instead. Woldbye conveyed that the investor base held an appetite for the move. The process is viewed as moving slowly, and those involved have chosen, at least for now, to accept that pace. Patience on the timeline has its limits, Woldbye's statement made clear.
